Allowed

Harishkumar Gurdasmal Vaswani v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2019WP/8124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen petitioner sought vacant possession of auction-purchased agricultural land. Court directed bank to hand over physical possession within four weeks. Failure to do so would result in refund of retained funds with 8% interest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to hand over physical possession within four weeks; else refund of retained sum with 8% per annum simple interest from date of payment until realization.

Harishkumar Gurdasmal Vaswani Vs Reserve Bank of India… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

10.1-ASWP8124-19.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8124 OF 2019

¶4

Harishkumar Gurdasmal Vaswani & Anr
Versus

¶5

Reserve Bank of India & Ors

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr Subhash Jha, with Hari Krishna Mishra, i/b Law Global, for the
Petitioner.
Mr HS Venegaonkar, for the Union of India.
Mrs AA Purav, AGP for Respondents No. 5-State.
Mrs Prabha Badadare, for Respondent No. 3.

¶9

Mr BV Samant, for Respondent No. 2.

¶10

Mr K Surya Krishnamurty, Deputy Collector & Competent
Authority (NSEL), is present.

¶11

CORAM:S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ
DATED:16th September 2019

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.The petitioner, a senior citizen had instituted this writ
petition seeking a direction to the respondents, and particularly the
Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Limited – 2nd respondent to this writ
petition to ensure that he is handed over vacant and peaceful
possession of 6.80 hectares of agricultural land purchased by him in
an auction at Village Unch, Khadakwadi, Post Rajuri, Taluka Junnar,
District Pune.

¶14

Page 1 of 5 16th September 2019

¶15

10.1-ASWP8124-19.DOC

¶16

2.It is claimed that the said land is not being handed over
despite the petitioner being successful at an auction held way back
on 4th January 2008.

¶17

3.The petitioner says that after great eforts, the 2nd
respondent executed a sale deed on 25th October 2018 and a further
deed executed on 2nd January 2019.

¶18

4.There is a name mentioned in the said sale deeds of one
Shivaji Kanse. Now, if this Shivaji Kanse continues to be in
possession of the lands which are purchased by the petitioner at the
auction and if physical possession is not being transferred to the
petitioner, then, the petitioner is also seeking a consequential
direction in that regard.

¶19

5.On instructions the respondent’s Advocate Mr BV Samant
says that within four weeks from today, the 2nd respondent will
obtain physical possession of the land in question from the said Mr
Shivaji Kanse, respondent No. 3 to this writ petition and thereafter
hand it over to the petitioner. He states that the Bank will invoke the
provisions of Section 100 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Act, 1960 read with Rule 85 of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Rules, 1961, to ensure vacant possession. He also points
out that the auction sale was on an as-is-where-is basis.

¶20

6. We have perused the writ petition and all its annexures.

¶21

Page 2 of 5 16th September 2019

¶22

10.1-ASWP8124-19.DOC

¶23

7.The petitioner has impleaded respondent No. 3 in this
petition not as a necessary party. The petitioner says that having
acquired a right in the land and having complied with all the terms
and conditions of the auction, it is entirely for the 2nd respondent to
obtain possession of the land from the party in possession and hand
it over to the petitioner.

¶24

8.The petitioner has no business much less any privity of
contract with Mr Shivaji Nayaran Kanse.

¶25

9.Mr Samant appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent states
that the 3rd respondent is in physical possession but without any
right in the property.

¶26

10.We do not think that having obtained all the benefts under
the auction and retaining the sum, the 2nd respondent has exhibited
that it is acting fairly and particularly with a senior citizen like the
petitioner. It is in the least honouring its contractual commitments.
The petitioner has made payment of Rs. 3.20 lakhs on 9th
December 2007, Rs. 5.10 lakhs on 5th January 2008, and Rs. 24.80
lakhs on 31st January 2008.

¶27

11.The petitioner says that the sale deed has been executed on
25th October 2018 and a later sale deed is of 29th January 2019.

¶28

12.Mr Samant made complaint that the petitioner took time for
stamping the instrument but does not dispute that after the
stamping the petitioner was entitled to obtain physical possession of

¶29

Page 3 of 5 16th September 2019

¶30

10.1-ASWP8124-19.DOC

¶31

the property and it was the bounden duty of the 2nd respondent to
hand over the same to him. If the 2nd respondent had to take steps
against the respondent No. 3 to dispossess him and then obtain
possession from him so as to in turn hand over the property or the
land to the petitioner, we expected it to do so at least after the
execution of the sale deeds. The frst sale deed is dated 25th
October 2018 and the second is dated 2nd January 2019. We have
not been shown any record much less any order of any competent
Court or authority passed at the instance of the 3rd respondent. He
has not challenged these registered deeds.

¶32

13.Moreover, it cannot be that in respect of an auction
conducted 12 years ago, the Recovery Ofcer has done nothing at all
to ensure possession and delivery. If what was being auctioned was a
litigation, then that is a separate thing. But what was put to auction
was immovable property. We notice that the auction notice gave a
reserve price of about Rs.30 lakhs. Obviously, that could not have
been the price with a pre-existing contesting or rival right or claim
but only a value of property of which it was possible to deliver
possession.

¶33

14.In such circumstances, we direct that within four weeks from
today the physical possession of the property should be handed over
to the petitioner. Else, after four weeks the entire sum retained by
the 2nd respondent shall be refunded to the Petitioner with simple
interest at the rate of 8% (eight per cent) per annum from the date of
each payment until realization.

¶34

Page 4 of 5 16th September 2019

¶35

10.1-ASWP8124-19.DOC

¶36

15.The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.

¶37

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

¶38

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶39

Page 5 of 5 16th September 2019

Harishkumar Gurdasmal Vaswani v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishkumar Gurdasmal Vaswani v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanta Babarao Deshmukh Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (B.M.C) and Anr.

Shanta Babarao Deshmukh Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (B.M.C) and Anr.

Prashant Eknath Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Essa Aziz Tabela Milk Producers Welfare Society and 2 Ors. Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Union of India Vs Chief Electoral Officer and 4 Ors.

Shabana Mohammad Sharif Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Rural Development Dept. and Ors.