THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI COMPANY APPLICATION No.2036 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION No.57 OF 1999 O R D E R : By order dated 26.04.2001 made in C.P.No.57 of 1999 this Court ordered winding up of M/s. Sirsilk Limited and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the Liquidator. Pursuant thereto, the Official Liquidator took possession of the properties of the company in liquidation situated at Sirpur Kaghaznagar, Adilabad District. All the said properties, comprising of vacant land, quarters and commercial structures were got valued through M/s. APITCO Limited and some of the assets were disposed of. In order to bring the unsold assets for sale, the Official Liquidator filed Company Application No.343 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 18.04.2009 permitted the Official Liquidator to sell the assets of the company in liquidation in 8 different lots after getting valued through a Chartered Valuer. While approving the terms and conditions for sale of the properties and the draft notice inviting sealed tenders as proposed by the Official Liquidator, this Court further ordered that in the draft notice one more note may be added indicating that the bidders may also opt to bid for lesser extent of land and correspondingly submit the EMD at 10% of the valuation offered by them. In terms of the said order, the Official Liquidator issued sale notice dated 6.5.2009 putting the land to sale in 8 lots and also permitting the bidders to submit their tenders for lesser extent of land in a lot. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator put the assets in 8 lots for sale on “as is where is and whatever there is” basis. So far as Lot No.5, admeasuring Ac.34-63 cents of land is concerned, the applicant herein, who offered Rs.1,80,00,000/- was the successful bidder. By letter dated 06.11.2009 the Official Liquidator called upon the applicant to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,62,00,000/- (after deducting the EMD already paid) within one month. Having received the same, the applicant filed C.A.No.1986 of 2009 seeking extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration. The said application is still pending. While so, the present application has been filed alleging that whereas the sale notice 06.05.2009 described lot No.5 as “engineering college buildings” and buildings were also existing upon the said land by the date of the submission of the bids, subsequently, on 12.12.2009 when the applicant went to the spot, it was found that all the buildings were demolished. It is contended that the Official Liquidator had failed to safeguard the land which was put to sale and the properties were left unprotected resulting in the demolition of the buildings. Thus, it is contended that the value of constructions/ engineering college buildings is liable to be deducted from the sale consideration with regard to lot No.5. According to the applicant, the engineering college buildings were fetching a rent of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month and therefore, the value of the buildings that were demolished was about Rs.75,00,000/-. Thus, it is prayed to direct the Official Liquidator to determine the value of the engineering college buildings and to deduct the same from the sale consideration in respect of lot No.5 notified in the sale notice dated 06.05.2009. It is stated by the Official Liquidator in his report dated 30.06.2010 that by order dated 04.12.2008 made in C.A.No.1449 of 2008 this Court had appointed M/s. Servel Associates as the valuer to value the properties of the company in liquidation and as per the valuation report which was submitted to this Court on 18.03.2009 the engineering college structures had not been taken into consideration and the value was given only for the land. The said valuation report was taken on record by this Court on 18.03.2009 and 26.03.2009 and pursuant to the order passed by this Court the Official Liquidator had put the property for sale on “as is where is and whatever there is” basis. It is also stated that the minimum upset price shown in the sale notice was fixed taking into consideration the value of the land only and the value of the building was never taken into consideration. It is further explained that the property was shown in the sale notice as “including college buildings” only for the purpose of identification of the property and it was also clarified/explained before conducting inter se bidding/negotiations by the Official Liquidator. It is explained that the building existing on the land in lot No.5 was vacated long back and later on the Official Liquidator had taken possession of the same on 17.05.2007 as per the orders of this Court and that the Official Liquidator had not received any rentals for the said property from 22.03.1999. It is also stated that after filing C.A.No.1986 of 2009 seeking extension of time, the applicant had remitted a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- on 08.12.2009. Thus, the total amount paid by him is only Rs.98,00,000/- (including the EMD) as against the sale consideration of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. Since the applicant failed to pay the entire sale consideration within the time specified in the terms and conditions of sale, the sum of Rs.98,00,000/- deposited by the applicant in respect of lot No.5 is liable to be forfeited. I have heard Sri G.Narendranath, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator. Whereas it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the value of lot No.5 notified in the sale notice dated 06.05.2009 included the value of the engineering college buildings existing on the said land to an extent of 33,216 sft., which were fetching a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and that the said buildings were demolished after the auction was held and the sale was confirmed, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator that the valuation of lot No.5 did not include the value of the engineering college structures and the same was not taken into consideration while fixing the minimum upset price. It is also vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator that the applicant was very well aware of the fact that the minimum upset price was fixed with regard to the value of the land only and that the present application has been filed making false claims which is nothing but an after thought. A perusal of the sale notice dated 06.05.2009 shows that lot No.5 was described as land admeasuring Ac.34.63 cents including engineering college buildings. However, the valuation report submitted by the registered valuer-M/s. Servel Associates makes it clear that the engineering college structures had nil value stating that the structures were in a dilapidated condition and were not of any use to anyone. It is the specific case of the Official Liquidator that having regard to the said report of the valuer, the minimum upset price was fixed taking into consideration the value of the land only. In the circumstances even assuming that the said buildings were existing on the land as on the date of the confirmation of sale in favour of the applicant and that they were demolished subsequently, the applicant cannot be said to have suffered prejudice in any manner whatsoever. As a matter of fact except the vague plea in his affidavit, the applicant could not place any material before this Court to substantiate his claim that the buildings in question were fetching rents to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- by the date of sale. The mere fact that the Official Liquidator filed C.A.No.1882 of 2009 against one Gurunanak Institute of Technology (formerly JSN College of Engineering and Technology) for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,66,75,967/- towards the alleged arrears of rents in respect of the buildings in question does not in any way support the plea of the applicant that the building was fetching monthly of rent of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- by the date of the sale notice and that its value should be amount Rs.75,00,000/- as on that date. A perusal of the affidavit of the Official Liquidator in C.A.No.1882 of 2009 shows that no rents were paid by the occupants of the said buildings after the building was taken possession by the Official Liquidator. Thus, it is evident that as on the date of the valuation of lot No.5 by the Registered Valuer the building was not fetching any rents and moreover it was in a dilapidated condition. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the claim made by the applicant for deduction of the value of the buildings allegedly demolished from the sale consideration is untenable. The further allegation that the Official Liquidator had resorted to unjust enrichment and had acted in high handed manner is unfounded and consequently, the decision in URBAN IMPROVEMENT, BIKANER v. MOHAN LAL[1] cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, wherein the Supreme Court had deprecated the harsh attitude of the Government and Statutory authorities in regard to genuine grievances of the public has no relevance. Accordingly, the application which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 27.12.2010 klp [1] 2010 (1) SCJ 347