The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the respondents had already delivered physical possession of the auctioned property to the petitioners via Panch/Affidavit before the final order date, extinguishing the cause of action.
The writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42294 of 2019
Petitioner :- Aman Kumar Yadav And Another Respondent :- Bank Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradyumna Kumar,Vidya Kant Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- R.V. Pandey,Ashok Pandey
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Re: Civil Misc. Review Application No. 3 of 2020.
This is an application seeking recall of the order dated 14.1.2020 passed by this Court, which is quoted hereinbelow:
"Re: Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 2 of 2020:-
This is an application to implead Shri Rajendra Kumar Sahu, son of Brij Mohan Lal Sahu (the proprietor/borrower) as respondent no. 3.
It is pertinent to mention here that the property in question, earlier belonging to his (the applicant - Shri Rajendra Kumar Sahu) father Shri Brij Mohan Lal Sahu (mortgagor/guarantor), has already been auctioned and sale certificate has also been issued.
The property in question was auctioned under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act") on 24.08.2018. In case the applicant was aggrieved, in any manner, from the sale of the property in question, he should have taken appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Now, when the sale has been confirmed, we do not find any justification to implead him (Shri Rajendra Kumar Sahu). In the circumstances, the applicant has no locus standi to get himself impleaded and the impleadment application is rejected.
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42294 of 2019
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are auction purchasers and despite the fact that the petitioners have deposited more than Rs. 74 lacs, neither sale certificate has been issued in their favour nor the physical possession of the property in dispute has been delivered to them.
In pursuance of the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by this Court, the Branch Manager, Bank of India (the respondent no. 2) has appeared in person before this Court today.
Today, a letter dated 10.01.2020 has been placed before us enclosing 'the sale certificate' indicating that the auction sale made in favour of the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act of the immovable property
belonging to Shri Brij Mohan Lal Sahu (mortgagor/guarantor) has been confirmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that till date, the petitioners have not received the physical possession of the property in question, although they have already paid Rs. 74 lacs and odd way back in 2018 to purchase the property in question in the auction sale. We fail to understand as to how the respondent - Bank has put the property in question to auction without taking physical possession of the same. Despite the petitioners having deposited more than Rs. 74 lacs, till date, they have not been able to get the physical possession of the property in question. The petitioners have been left high and dry at the mercy of the respondent - Bank and the public authorities.
Such conduct of the respondent - Bank is liable to be deprecated. Accordingly, we direct the respondent - Bank, the District Magistrate, Prayagraj as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj to ensure that the property in question be delivered to the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
List this matter before us on 14.02.2020.
If the physical possession of the property in question is not delivered to the petitioners on or before the date fixed, the Branch Manager of the respondent - Bank, the District Magistrate, Prayagraj as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj shall appear in person before this Court.
Let a copy of this order be provided to Shri A.K. Singh, learned standing counsel, free of cost, in order to enable him to communicate about this order to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj."
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any justification to interfere in the matter. The review application is misconceived. Hence rejected.
Re: WRIT - C No. - 42294 of 2019
This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue sale certificate in favour of petitioners in relation to the auctioned property in question and to deliver the possession over the auctioned property in question.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents bank to decide the application/representation dated 17.9.2019 filed by the petitioner."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arif Ikbal , Sri R.V.
Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Bank and perused the record.
According to learned counsel for the petitioners, physical possession of the property in question has already been delivered to them on 7.2.2020. In support of his contention, he has filed a compliance affidavit wherein in paragraph 4 & 5 of the affidavit it has been mentioned as follows:
"4. That the respondent no. 1 & 2 to the present writ petition in compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 19.12.2019 have handed over SALE CERTIFICATE & letter of authorized officer on 10.01.2020 to the petitioner which duly received by him. A copy of sale certificate & letter of authorized officer dated 10.01.2020 along with service proof is being filed here with and marked as Annexure No. (CA1) to this affidavit.
5. That it is also humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the respondent no. 1 & 2, after taken physical possession of immovable property (mortgage) of Shri Brij Mohan Lal Sahu (mortgagor) have delivered physical possession to the petitioners on 07.02.2020 before PANCH along with inventory of immovable property premises of Shri Brij Mohan Lal Sahu House No. 185/166, Bahadurganj, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, Allahabad (Prayagraj) u/s 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act 2002 in compliance of the order dated 14.01.2020 of this Hon'ble Court. A photo copy of PANCHNAMA & inventory regarding delivery of physical possession of property of mortgage dated 07.02.2020 to the petitioners is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. (CA-2) to this affidavit."
From a perusal of the Paragraphs No. 4 and 5, it is clear that after taking physical possession of the immovable property (mortgage) of Shri Brij Mohan Lal Sahu (mortgagor) physical possession has been delivered to the petitioners on 07.02.2020 before PANCH along with inventory of immovable property premises of Shri Brij Mohan Lal Sahu, House No. 185/166, Bahadurganj, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, Allahabad (Prayagraj).
Since physical possession of the property in question has already been handed over to the petitioner, the cause of action does not survives in the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous.
Order Date :- 14.2.2020 vinay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition remains maintainable after the respondents delivered physical possession of the auctioned property to the petitioners.
Whether the review application seeking recall of the interim order dated 14.1.2020 deserves interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aman Kumar Yadav And Another
Bank Of India And Another
Shashi Kant Gupta
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
