Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18500 of 2021 Petitioner :- Manish Singhal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran,Varun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Priyanka Midha,Ram M. Kaushik,Wasim Masood Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Mrs. Priyanka Midha, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and Sri Wasim Masood, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.
The writ petitioners seek issuance of appropriate directions to Respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar to act in furtherance of the Recovery Certificates dated 21.01.2019 and 02.07.2019 issued by the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners and against Respondent No.3, pursuant to the order dated 11.07.2018 passed in Complaint No.220187316.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that despite the issuance of the Recovery Certificate dated 21.01.2019 Respondent No.2 has failed to take any action to recover the amount under the Recovery Certificate from Respondent No.3. On representation being moved to Respondent No.4, a second Recovery Certificate dated 02.07.2019 was issued requiring Respondent No.2 to recover the amount due from Respondent No.3 as arrears of land revenue. It is further contended that Respondent No.2 on an incorrect appreciation of the fact and law expressed his inability to execute the recovery certificate dated 02.07.2019 on the ground of an order passed by NCLT, Delhi and returned the recovery certificate. The factual position was clarified and the recovery certificate was reissued but was returned once again on the pretext that the office of Respondent No.3 could not be traced at the address provided in the recovery certificate nor any bank details of Respondent No.3 has been provided wherefrom the amount could be recovered. It is lastly contended that Respondent No.3 has not preferred any appeal against the order of Respondent No.4 and the order has attained finality. In the absence of any challenge to the order of Respondent No.4 the same is liable to be carried to its logical end and the amount recovered from Respondent No.3 but the inaction on the part of Respondent No.2 is in fact benefiting Respondent No.3 and adding to the agony and misery of the petitioners. The petitioners have brought on record a letter dated 15.01.2021 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadri, Gautam Buddh Nagar, addressed to Respondent No.4 appraising it of the difficulty being faced to execute the Recovery Certificate and requiring further instructions.
This Court vide its order dated 24.09.2021 required the presence of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to explain his conduct in reference to the letter dated 15.01.2021. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadri, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Sri Alok Kumar Gupta son of Sri Yudhveer Saran has filed a detailed affidavit. In substance his stand is that the recovery certificate dated 21.01.2019 was returned without carrying out the recovery due to the fact that the address of the firm (Respondent No.3) mentioned on the recovery certificate was B-131 Sector-2, NOIDA, which was a rented accommodation. The firm had already vacated the said address. In the recovery certificate dated 02.07.2019 the permanent address of Respondent No.3 was mentioned as 210-C, MIG, Sector 93, NOIDA and local address was mentioned as Plot No.22 KP-3, Greater Noida. The Flat No.210-C Block MIG, Sector 93, NOIDA belongs to the NOIDA Development Authority and was allotted to one Sri Ambika Prasad Sharma son of Shankar Lal Sharma and the Plot No.22 KP-3, Greater Noida was allotted to Premier Information Technology Park Pvt. Ltd. No information regarding the movable and immovable properties of Respondent No.3 could be obtained and consequently, no recovery could be done against Respondent No.3 as Respondent No.3 is stated to have provided forged and fabricated documents to the authorities as well as to the petitioners.
Sri Saran vide supplementary affidavit dated 15.11.2021 in compliance of the order dated 28.10.2021 has provided the details/whereabouts of the Directors of Respondent No.3. The affidavit states that Respondent No.3 has altered its previously registered address and details as registered with the RERA Authority.
Respondent No.3 has put in appearance in the case and is represented by Smt. Priyanka Midha, learned counsel. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by Respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, Respondent No.3 has attempted to establish its bonafides that its Directors have never attempted to evade the processes and procedures of the RERA Authorities. It has portrayed its checkered history including being financially duped by its erstwhile Directors leading up to the passing of the ex-parte order dated 11.07.2018 by the RERA Authority, Respondent No.4. The factum of carrying out its project over Plot No.22, Knowledge Park-III, Greater Noida, U.P. under a memorandum of understanding duly executed with M/s Premier Information Technology Part (P) Ltd. has not been disputed. In para 19 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the registered office of the company has been 8/11 Jungpura Extension New Delhi 110014. Since March, 2016 after exit of the erstwhile Director Mr. Surinder Sandha. In para 20 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that Mr. Surinder Sandha had been operating independently from Noida Office situated at B-131, Sector-2, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar. The petitioners had due knowledge of the registered address of Respondent No.3 i.e. at 8/11, Jungpura Extension but the same was not disclosed for reasons unknown. Respondent No.3 has preferred a recall application before the RERA Authority seeking recall of the ex-parte order dated 11.07.2018 which is pending consideration. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.3 that no sinister purpose for avoiding the recovery proceedings can be attributed to Respondent No.3.
We have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties.
We find that the relief claimed by the petitioners is for expediting the recovery proceedings against Respondent No.3 consequent to the order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The petitioners had been compelled to approach this Court as Respondent No.2 could not proceed to execute the recovery certificates dated 21.01.2019 and 02.07.2019 as Respondent No.3 could not be located. Respondent No.3 has put in appearance in the case and has undertaken to abide by all the proceedings and statutory obligations arising from the RERA proceedings. We are of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same can be disposed of directing Respondent No.2 to proceed with the recovery certificate.
In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioners and Respondent No.3 through its authorized representative to appear before the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Respondent No.2 within 15 days from today along with a certified copy of this order. Respondent No.2 is expected to give an audience to the parties and make all endeavour to execute the recovery certificates dated 21.01.2019 and 02.07.2019 as clarified by letter dated 12.10.2021 of the Respondent No.4 addressed to the Respondent No.2, which have been issued for recovery of a sun of Rs.20,38,868.32 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month of serving a certified copy of this order upon him, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021/pks