When the matter is called-out and taken-up for hearing today after the order dated 8.2.2012, Mr. Nanavati, learned AGP, submitted that on earlier occasion, the OL has taken out the title search report prepared through some agency. He further submitted that the agency which had undertaken the exercise, did not take into account the claims and rights of the ULC authority in respect of the lands, which have vested in Government pursuant to the proceedings under the ULC Act. The said defect rendered the report contrary to records. He further submitted that, unfortunately, on the subsequent occasion also, the same report of the authority, who had undertaken the exercise of title search has been taken into account which casts shadow of doubt on the report prepared by the said valuer. Mr. Nanavati, learned AGP, also submitted that even in respect of the lands which are considered free hold lands, certain claims have been put up before the concerned Government authority and that therefore, he suggested, it would be appropriate to take such aspects into account before finalizing the action for sale of lands which are considered as free hold lands.
2. This Court is conscious of the fact that the workers are anxious for early disposal of the properties and assets of the company so that further disbursement in respect of their claims can be made after sale consideration is received on disposal of the properties and assets and that therefore, the workers would expect that the exercise for disposal of the lands may be carried out at the earliest. However, considering the record as it stands today, including the orders passed earlier in present application and other/previous applications and also the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in OJ Appeal as well as the valuer's reports, which have been taken out from time to time and above everything, the controversy as regards the rights and claims of the lessors and also in view of the discrepancies and disputes with regard to the actual measurement of the lands in question including the free hold lands and lessor's lands/lease hold lands and the lands in respect of which the ULC authority claims vesting and possession and their respective measurements, the issue has become extremely complex and complicated and any action or decision without verifying all relevant factual aspects, particularly the title and measurement of the lands proposed to be sold, is likely to create, at subsequent stage or even at the stage when the process for disposal of the lands is in progress, further complications, disputes and claims and likely to give rise to more issues, create more problems and in all probability, further litigations as well.
2.1 Therefore, it is considered appropriate and advisable to take precautionary steps in such a manner that such defect, particularly any claims and litigations may be eliminated as far as possible.
2.2 It is noticed that the discrepancies and anomalies have arisen in respect of the actual measurement of the lands which are claimed as free hold lands and the lands for which lessors are claiming rights and title.
Similar is the case so far as ULC authority's claim is concerned.
Even in respect of F.P.No.32 where it is claimed that about 16000 sq mts lands is free hold lands, the ULC authority has, in balance portion of land, put forward its claim and exact identification is, at this stage, hazy.
3. Under the circumstances, one suggestion, which has been taken into consideration is to follow the procedure as followed in another case namely, OLR No.212 of 2011 wherein the Court considered it appropriate to invite, at pre-advertisement stage, objections from the concerned persons in respect of the lands which are proposed to be put up for disposal.
3.1 For the said purpose, the details of final plots, exact measurement and erstwhile survey numbers are necessary.
3.2 So as to ascertain the area/measurement, which is considered free hold lands by the two valuers, it is concerned appropriate, with consent of all learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, to call one of the valuers who has undertaken the exercise of preparing the reports, to come to the Court tomorrow and give the details as regards the plot numbers / survey numbers and measurement of the lands which are considered free hold lands in the report (which are yet not opened and withheld and which awaits the direction from the Court for being opened) so that on the basis of such details, if considered appropriate, the OL may be directed to issue advertisement for inviting objections from the interested persons at this stage.
Therefore, the OL is requested to inform the concerned officer of GITCO who submitted the valuation report to remain personally present in the Court tomorrow, i.e. on 14.2.2012.
4. Today during the hearing of the report, Mr. Nanavati, learned AGP, has shown a copy of the letter dated 2.11.2011 addressed by the OL to Solicitor & Advocate. On perusal of the said communication, it is noticed that under the said letter dated 2.11.2011, the OL forwarded a copy of the report to the said Solicitor & Advocate, whose name is mentioned in the said communication. Mr. Nanavati, learned AGP, has placed another letter of even date i.e. 2.11.2011 bearing No.OL/Omex Investors/5666 to 5611/2011, the OL has on his own and without permission from the Court, engaged a Solicitor & Advocate to submit a report for verification and scrutiny of title search. It also appears that along with the said communication, the reports prepared by M/s. Pranav Parikh and GITCO were forwarded to the Solicitor & Advocate named in the communication. Mr. Nanavati, learned AGP, submitted that until the said date, any direction even to open the valuation reports was not passed by the Court and yet the said reports were forwarded by the OL to the addressee of the said two communications. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the OL is directed to file report/affidavit explaining the said conduct and also explain as to why without permission of the Court, the decision to engage the Solicitor & Advocate was taken and why the decision to forward the reports to such Solicitor & Advocate was taken and why without permission of the Court and when the reports were still not ordered to be opened in the Court, the reports were forwarded.
For the aforesaid two purposes, the hearing of the present report is adjourned to tomorrow, i.e. 14.2.2012. The OL may request the valuer from the office of GITCO to remain personally present and file the reply/affidavit, as aforesaid, by tomorrow, i.e. 14.2.2012.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top