Bombay High Court
Govind S/O. Sureshkumar Agrawal ... vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. ... on 15 June, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 1/19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 527 of 2023
with
WRIT PETITION NO.689 of 2023
----------
WRIT PETITION NO.527 OF 2023
1. Govind s/o Sureshkumar Agrawal,
Aged about 42 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o. 63, Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Mayur s/o Manoharlal Agrawal,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o. 32, Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur.
..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. Nagpur Improvement Trust,
through its Chairman,
Office at Kingsway Road, Sadar,
Nagpur.
2. The Divisional Officer(East),
Nagpur Improvement Trust,
Surya Nagar, Nagpur.
Amended as per
orders dated 3. The State of Maharashtra,
18.04.2023 and
27.04.2023
through Secretary, Urban Development Department,
Sd/- C. F. Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
Petitioners
....... RESPONDENTS
with
WRIT PETITION NO.689 OF 2023
Punjab National Bank
A Body Corporate constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings Act)
having its head office Plot No.4, Sector-10,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075 and
Branch Office amongst other places at
Gandhibagh, Nagpur, being represented
through Mr. Radhakanta s/o Bhimsen Pradhan,
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 23:50:04 :::
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 2/19
aged 35 years, Occupation-Service,
Authorised Officer-Punjab National Bank,
Asset Recovery Management Branch,
having office at PNB House, Kingsway,
Nagpur-440 001(MS). ..PETITIONER
Versus
1. Nagpur Improvement Trust,
Nagpur, through its Chairman,
having office at Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001.
2. City Survey Officer No.2,
having office at 5th Floor, Administrative Building No.1.
Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001.
3. Kamlesh s/o Shantilal Shah,
Proprietor of M/s Kamal Pulses,
Aged-Major, Occupation-Business,
R/o. Flat No. 302, Tulsi Apartments,
Near Itwari Telephone Exchange,
Central Avenue Road, Nagpur.
4. Vikas s/o Pandurang Thakre,
Aged Major, Occupation-Trustee,
Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur.
Having office at Civil Lines, Nagpur and
residing at Shastri Layout,
Near Metro Station, Subhash Nagar Chowk,
Hingna Road, Nagpur.
5. Prakash s/o Sitaram Bhoyar,
Aged-Major, Occupation-Trustee,
Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur.
Having office at Civil Lines, Nagpur and
residing at Near Mahatme Hospital,
Somalwada, Nagpur.
6. Sandeep s/o Vasantrao Itkelwar,
Aged about 50 years, Occupation-Trustee,
Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur,
having office at Civil Lines, Nagpur and
residing at Itkelwar Wada, Gujri Chowk,
Near Pintu Saoji, Juni Mangalwari,
Nagpur-440 008.
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 23:50:04 :::
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 3/19
7. Pravinbhai s/o Premjibhai Thakkar,
Aged-47 years, Occupation-Business,
R/o. Plot No.64, Nandanvan Road,
Infront of KDK College, Hanuman Nagar,
Nagpur-440 009.
8. Govind s/o Sureshkumar Agrawal,
Aged about 44 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o. 63, Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur-440 008.
9. Mayur s/o Manoharlal Agrawal,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o. 32, Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur-400 008.
Added/ 10. State of Maharashtra,
amended as per
Order dated
through Principal Secretary, Urban Development
18.04.2023 Department, 4th floor, Main Building,
Sd/-
C.F.Petitioner. Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32 (MS) ...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri C.S.Kaptan, Senior Advocate with Shri A.A.Mardikar, Advocate for
petitioners in Writ Petition No.527 of 2023 and for respondent nos. 8 and 9
in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023.
Shri S.K.Mishra, Senior Advocate with Shri Nikhil Kirtane and Shri Sudhir
Puranik, Advocates for respondent-Nagpur Improvement Trust in both the
writ petitions.
Ms N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3 in Writ
Petition No.527 of 2023 and for respondent nos. 2 & 10 in Writ Petition
No.689 of 2023.
Shri Harish Dangre, Advocate for petitioner in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023.
Shri S. V. Bhutada, Advocate for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.689 of
2023.
Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri Shantanu Khedkar, Advocate
for respondent nos. 4 to 6 in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023.
Shri S.A.Mohta, Advocate for respondent no.7 in Writ Petition No.689 of
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 06.06.2023
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON : 15.06.2023
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 23:50:04 :::
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 4/19
JUDGMENT (Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Since challenge has been raised to the decision/resolution of the
Board of Trustees' of the Nagpur Improvement Trust dated 02.03.2022 in
both the writ petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided
by common judgment.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned
Advocates for the parties.
3. The facts relevant for deciding the writ petitions are that Plot
No.101, Mouza-Chikhli (Deo), Khasra Nos. 61, 63 and 69 vest with the
Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short, the NIT). On 07.04.1998 the NIT was
pleased to auction leasehold rights of the aforesaid property in favour of one
Shri Kamlesh Shantilal Shah for industrial use. Pursuant thereto, on
24.08.1998 the NIT executed a lease deed of the aforesaid property in his
favour subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. As per Clause
1(m-1) the said plot was allotted on concessional premium and the
conditions prescribed under Rule 24 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Land
Disposal Rules, 1983 (for short, the Rules of 1983) as well as the conditions
that could be imposed by the Chairman were made applicable. The aforesaid
lessee mortgaged the aforesaid land for obtaining financial assistance. Since
the lessee failed to repay the amount borrowed by him, the Bank proceeded
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 5/19
to auction the aforesaid property on 18.08.2018. The said property was
purchased by the respondent no.7 in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023 . The said
auction purchaser thereafter on 23.10.2019 sold the aforesaid property to
the petitioners in Writ Petition No.527 of 2023 who are also arrayed as
respondent nos. 8 and 9 in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023 (for short, the
Purchasers). Based on a complaint made by the original lessee with the NIT,
its Trustees' in a meeting held on 02.03.2022 resolved to lodge a First
Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner in Writ Petition No.689 of
2023-Punjab National Bank (for short, the Bank) on the ground that it had
auctioned the said leasehold property without obtaining permission of the
NIT. It was also resolved to resume possession of the aforesaid property and
intervene in the pending proceedings initiated by the Bank before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal. Acting on this resolution, a notice came to be issued to
the Purchasers on 16.01.2023 requiring them to hand over possession of the
leasehold property within a period of seven days. The Purchasers thus being
aggrieved have challenged the resolution passed by the Board of Trustees' of
the NIT dated 02.03.2022 as well as the notice issued to them by the NIT on
16.01.2023 by filing Writ Petition No.527 of 2023.
4. In Writ Petition No.689 of 2023, the Bank has challenged the said
resolution dated 02.03.2022, copy of which was received by it on
06.01.2023. During pendency of the writ petition, the State Government
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 6/19
through its Urban Development Department issued a communication to the
Chairman of the NIT on 20.03.2023 stating therein that part of resolution
dated 02.03.2022 by which it was proposed to lodge a First Information
Report (for short, the FIR) against the Bank was concerned, the same was
rescinded. Rest of the resolution proposing to take over possession of Plot
No.101 in terms of resolution dated 02.03.2022 came to be confirmed and
the NIT was directed to take necessary steps in that regard.
5. Shri C.S.Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Purchasers submitted that the NIT was not justified in issuing notice to the
Purchasers on 16.01.2023 in exercise of the power of re-entry. The only
ground on which the right of re-entry was being exercised was that the no
objection certificate of the NIT had not been obtained before the sale deed
came to be executed in favour of the Purchasers on 23.10.2019. In fact,
there was no necessity of seeking any no objection certificate in that regard.
The learned Senior Advocate referred to the information supplied under
provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 13.09.2012 by the NIT
itself. In clear terms, it was stated that there was no requirement of
obtaining no objection certificate while entering into such transaction. He
also referred to the resolution dated 03.09.2016 passed by the Board of
Trustees of the NIT in which it was observed that since the provisions of
Section 22 A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the Act of 1908) had
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 7/19
been quashed, there was no requirement of obtaining such no objection
certificate. Attention was also invited to the communication dated
06.09.2016 issued by the NIT to the Bank of India reiterating this position. It
was thus clear from the aforesaid documents that the right of re-entry by the
NIT stood waived since obtaining of the no objection certificate had been
dispensed with.
As regards challenge raised to the resolution dated 02.03.2022,
it was submitted that there was no justifiable ground stated in the said
resolution while resolving to take back possession of the plot in question
from the Purchasers. The adverse statements made in the said resolution
were denied and the same could not be the basis for issuing the impugned
notice dated 16.01.2023. Moreover, the Purchasers alone had been singled
out by taking action against them. They were not given any notice of the
proceedings conducted on 13.10.2021 and the NIT had acted highhandedly
against the Purchasers. Such conduct resulted in breach of the provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and was thus liable to be set aside.
Reliance was placed in that regard on the decisions in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and others [(1979) 3 SCC
489] and M. P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur vs. SKY
Power South-East Solar India Private Limited and others [(2023) 2 SCC
703]. As regards the communication dated 20.03.2023 issued by the State
Government was concerned, it was submitted that there were no reasons
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 8/19
stated therein for maintaining the latter part of the resolution dated
02.03.2022 passed by the NIT. On these counts, it was submitted that the
impugned resolution dated 02.03.2022 as well as the notice dated
16.01.2023 would liable to be set aside and the Purchasers were entitled for
the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition.
6. Shri H. D. Dangre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
Bank in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023, in addition to the aforesaid, submitted
that the NIT was precluded from contending that the no objection certificate
was required to be obtained by the Bank before conducting the auction.
According to him, the NIT was a party to the recovery proceedings initiated
by the Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal but the stand that there was
absence of no objection certificate by the Bank had never been raised by the
NIT in the said proceedings. In any event, it was submitted that absence of
no objection certificate could not be treated to be an illegality affecting the
transaction but it was merely an irregularity that could be cured by obtaining
post-facto sanction. The learned Advocate further submitted that the right of
re-entry sought to be exercised by the NIT was available only on breach of
conditions of the lease deed. This would include the default in making
payment of lease amount or rent. With the provisions of Section 22 A of the
Act of 1908 ceasing to operate, there was no legal basis for the NIT to insist
upon obtaining the no objection certificate.
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 9/19
As regards the resolution dated 02.03.2022 was concerned, it
was submitted that even the NIT had no objection whatsoever for rescinding
the said resolution. The State Government by its communication dated
20.03.2023 partly rescinded the said resolution insofar as it was resolved to
lodge a FIR against the Bank. However, there was no justification in
maintaining the latter part of the said resolution, that too without assigning
any cogent reason therein. It was thus submitted that there was no legal
right whatsoever with the NIT to take back possession of the leasehold plot.
The relief sought by the Bank ought to be granted.
7. Shri S.K.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the NIT
opposed both the writ petitions. According to him, the plot in question was a
leasehold plot and pursuant to the allotment dated 07.04.1998 the lease
deed came to be executed on 24.08.1998. The conditions mentioned in the
lease deed were binding upon the present lessees-Purchasers. Inviting
attention to Clause 12 of the letter of allotment dated 07.04.1998 it was
pointed out that transfer of leasehold interest in the said land without
obtaining prior permission of the NIT was not permissible. Similarly, in the
lease deed dated 24.08.1998 vide Clause 1(m-1) it was stated that the plot
had been allotted on concessional premium and hence the conditions
prescribed by Rule 24 of the Rules of 1983 as well as the conditions imposed
by the Chairman of the NIT were applicable. Referring to Rule 24 of the
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 10/19
Rules of 1983, it was submitted that transfer of interest in concessional grant
of land could not be done without the prior sanction of the Chairman. It was
an admitted position that such prior sanction had not been obtained by the
Bank. It was on this basis that the NIT was exercising the right of re-entry.
The leasehold rights if any would continue to operate. Since the terms of the
allotment letter as well as the lease deed were accepted by the original
lessee, it was not permissible for them to now urge that there was no need of
obtaining the no objection certificate.
As regards the conduct of the Bank was concerned, it was
submitted that on 11.05.2013 the Bank had sought permission of the NIT to
sell the aforesaid land for recovering its dues. In response thereto, the NIT
had on 18.07.2013 replied that the Bank had created mortgaged without
following the terms and conditions of the lease deed and hence the relevant
entry with regard to said mortgage had been cancelled. The Bank had
preferred an appeal under Section 108A of the Nagpur Improvement Trust
Act, 1936 (for short, the Act of 1936) challenging the communication dated
18.07.2013. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 06.08.2015 and that
adjudication had attained finality. It was thus clear that despite aforesaid
the Bank was insisting that the requirement of obtaining the no objection
certificate had been dispensed with. It was further submitted that the
resolution dated 02.03.2022 would now operate only in respect of the latter
portion thereof since the resolution insofar as filing of the FIR was concerned
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 11/19
had been set aside. The fact that the latter portion of the resolution had
been maintained itself indicated that the action taken by the NIT was legal
and proper and the State Government did not find it necessary to interfere
with the same under Section 24-E of the Act of 1936. It was thus submitted
that there was no case made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction.
8. Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent
nos. 4 to 6 in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023-Trustees also opposed the writ
petitions and urged that though the said respondents had been arrayed in
Writ Petition No.689 of 2023 there were no allegations of malafides made
against them. As ex-officio members of the Board of Trustees the said
respondents had merely considered the matter as any other matter and on
the basis of material available, the resolution dated 02.03.2022 came to be
passed. The learned Senior Advocate invited attention to the observations in
paragraph 48 of the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and others United
Bank of India and others [(2016) 2 SCC 757] and urged that the mortgage
created by the Bank without obtaining prior permission of the NIT was void
ab-initio.
Ms N. P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.527 of 2023 and for respondent
nos. 2 and 10 in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023 also opposed the writ petitions
and supported that the stand taken by the NIT.
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 12/19
Shri C.S.Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate for the Purchasers in
reply submitted that while exercising power under Section 24-E of the Act of
1936 the Authority ought to have given reasons for not rescinding latter part
of resolution dated 02.03.2022. Merely on the basis of the note submitted
by the Chairman of the NIT, the communication dated 16.01.2023 came to
be issued. The order passed under Section 108A of the Act of 1936 made a
reference to the no objection certificate and not prior sanction as contended.
Since reference in the various communications issued by NIT was to the
absence of no objection certificate and not prior sanction, the same could not
be relied upon for the present purpose. The conditions in the lease deed
requiring prior sanction had stood waived. The right of re-entry sought to be
now exercised was not at all justified.
Shri H.D.Dangre, learned counsel for the Bank added that there
was no reference made to the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1983 in
any of the impugned communications. Even notice dated 16.01.2023 was
not in accordance with the said Rule. He also invited attention to the
averments in para 5 of the reply filed on behalf of the NIT in the said writ
petition in that regard.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance we have perused the documents placed on record. For
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 13/19
appreciating the rival submissions, it would be necessary to first refer to the
undisputed documentary material on record. On 07.04.1998 the NIT issued
an allotment letter in favour of Shri Kamlesh Shantilal Shah in respect of
land in question. Clause-12 of the allotment letter stipulates that the
aforesaid land was not liable to be transferred without obtaining prior
permission of the NIT. Thereafter lease deed dated 24.08.1998 came to be
executed by the NIT in favour of the aforesaid lessee. Clause 1(m-1) states
that the allotment of the plot was on concessional premium and hence the
conditions prescribed under Rule 24 of the Rules 1983 as well as the
conditions that could be imposed by the Chairman of the NIT would be
applicable. Since reference in the lease deed has been made to Rule 24 of
the Rules 1983, it would be necessary to refer to the same. As per the said
Rule while making a concessional grant of land, the condition of restriction
on transfer except with the previous sanction of the Chairman of the NIT had
been stated. Under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1983 the right of forfeiture of the
lease and power of re-entry of the lessor-NIT has been prescribed. This
includes breach of the Rules of 1983 or any condition of the lease.
Thus from the aforesaid, it becomes clear that there was a
concessional grant of the land in question in favour of the lessee -
Shri Kamlesh Shantilal Shah and under Rule 24 the condition of obtaining
prior sanction of the Chairman of the NIT prior to effecting any transfer had
been stipulated.
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 14/19
10. The aforesaid land came to be mortgaged by the original lessee
initially with the Akola Janta Commercial Co-operative Bank and thereafter
with the Bank herein. Since the original lessee defaulted in paying his dues,
the Bank initiated action under the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002. It held an
auction on 25.10.2018 in which the land in question was purchased by the
respondent no.7 in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023. The said respondent
thereafter on 23.10.2019 sold the aforesaid land to the Purchasers. The said
Purchasers have acquired interest in the said leasehold land in the aforesaid
manner.
11. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the action taken by the
Bank while seeking to recover its dues. On 11.05.2013 the Bank issued a
communication to the Chairman of the NIT seeking permission to sell the
present land since it had been mortgaged with the Bank and the account of
the borrower - Shri Kamlesh Shantilal Shah had been classified as the Non-
Performing Asset. The NIT by its communication dated 18.07.2013 informed
the Bank that since the Bank did not seek prior permission of the NIT before
creating the mortgage, the entry in that regard had been cancelled on
08.11.2012 by the Bank. Hence, there was no question of granting any
permission to the Bank to sell the said land. The Bank was aggrieved by the
aforesaid stand taken by the NIT and challenged the communication
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 15/19
dated 18.07.2013 by filing an appeal under Section 108A of the Act of 1936.
The Chairman of the NIT while deciding the appeal held that the NIT had
not granted any no objection certificate for mortgaging the aforesaid land
and therefore the Bank had no right in the said property. For the said reason,
the refusal by the Recovery Officer of the NIT to grant no objection certificate
was just and proper. The appeal came to be dismissed on 06.08.2015. It is
the specific stand of the NIT that this order has attained finality and the Bank
has not controverted the aforesaid. It is thus clear that the Bank has suffered
the order dated 06.08.2015 which confirms the stand taken by the NIT that
the aforesaid land came to be mortgaged with the Bank without obtaining
prior permission/no objection certificate from the NIT. In these facts,
therefore it would not be open now for the Bank to contend that it was not
necessary for it to have obtained such no objection from the NIT before
conducting auction of the said land. It thus follows that notwithstanding the
order dated 06.08.2015 the Bank proceeded to conduct the said auction in
which the respondent no.7 purchased leasehold rights. These very rights
came to be transferred in favour of the Purchasers on 23.10.2019.
12. The rights obtained by the Purchasers would be the same rights
that flow from the allotment letter dated 07.04.1998 and lease deed dated
24.08.1998. As stated above, the NIT had made a concessional grant of the
aforesaid land in favour of the original lessee. With the absence of leasehold
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 16/19
rights in favour of the Bank which thereafter auctioned those rights in favour
of the respondent no.7 in Writ Petition No.689 of 2023 coupled with the
subsequent purchase of those very leasehold rights by the Purchasers, it is
clear that the Purchasers cannot claim any higher right than what was
originally leased out to the lessee. It goes without saying that all terms and
conditions attached to the initial grant of lease were binding on the parties
who subsequently got interest in the said land.
13. Coming to the Resolution dated 02.03.2022 passed by the NIT it
can be seen that the same has been passed due to the failure to obtain prior
sanction of the NIT in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1983 prior to creating
interest in the said land. The Resolution notes that the conditions of the
lease had been breached by the Bank by creating a mortgage which came to
be subsequently cancelled on 08.11.2012 followed by refusal of permission
to sell the leasehold rights in the said land. The Resolution records that the
Trustees were not satisfied in the matter and hence after hearing the
concerned parties, the said resolution came to be passed. It is also a fact that
insofar as it was resolved to lodge a First Information Report against the
Bank that part of the resolution has been rescinded by the State Government
on 20.03.2023 while exercising powers under Section 24-E of the Act of
1936. We are not in a position to accept the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the Purchasers that the State Government ought to have given
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 17/19
reasons for not rescinding the entire resolution. Since the State Government
was satisfied that the first part of the resolution dated 02.03.2022 was liable
to be rescinded, it did so and that direction is not under challenge at the
instance of the NIT. It has to be taken that the State Government was
satisfied with the latter part of the resolution by which it was resolved to
take back possession of the plot in question and hence it issued a direction in
that regard. As such, no fault could be found with the communication dated
20.03.2023 issued by the State Government.
14. Once it is found that the Purchasers were the beneficiaries of a
transaction that was entered into without seeking prior sanction of the NIT
under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1983, there would be no basis for the Court to
hold that the Purchasers had been singled out for being proceeded against
thus vitiating the said action under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In absence of any legal right having accrued in favour of the Purchasers, it
cannot be said that they had been singled out for taking action. For the said
reason, the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for the
Purchasers do not come to the rescue of the Purchasers. Rule 15 of the
Rules of 1983 clothe the NIT with the power of re-entry and that power is
sought to be exercised by issuing the impugned communication dated
16.01.2023. Such power being available with the NIT, absence of express
reference to such provision in the impugned notice would not vitiate the
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 18/19
same. We therefore find that the exercise of such power of re-entry is in
accordance with the Rules of 1983, letter of allotment dated 07.04.1998 as
well as the express terms of the lease deed dated 24.08.1998. Though we
find that the Bank is estopped from contending that it was not necessary for
it to have obtained prior sanction/no objection from the NIT before selling
the leasehold rights in the aforesaid land in view of the earlier proceedings,
we have nevertheless examined its challenge to the resolution dated
02.03.2022, the communication dated 20.03.2023 as well as the notice
dated 16.01.2023. We are also not in a position to accept the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the Purchasers that the requirement of
obtaining no objection of the NIT had been dispensed with. We find that the
action of re-entry has been undertaken in exercise of such right conferred by
Rule 24 read with Rule 15 of the Rules of 1983 as well as the allotment letter
dated 07.04.1998 and lease deed dated 24.08.1998. The information
supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the NIT cannot be
treated to have dispensed with the requirement of obtaining prior sanction of
the Chairman of the NIT before transferring the leasehold interest especially
when the documents on the basis of which the Purchasers claim right
specifically stipulate the requirement of obtaining such prior sanction.
15. For aforesaid reasons, we do not find any case made out to
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
WP-527-23 with WP-689-23(J).odt 19/19
Both the writ petitions thus fail. They are accordingly
dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.
Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar.
At this stage the learned counsel for the Purchasers prays that
the possession of the Purchasers be protected to enable them to challenge
the judgment pronounced by this Court in appeal.
This prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the NIT.
Since there was no interim order protecting the possession of
the Purchasers, the request cannot be entertained. It is thus rejected.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar.
