Applicant challenged demand and possession notices, arguing land is agricultural and not mortgageable, and his title via unregistered 1995 agreement lacks legal sanctity. Tribunal rejected application at admission stage, finding insufficient proof of ownership.
Securitization Application rejected at admission stage with record consigned.
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.
ORDER-SHEET PageNo
DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL,DEHRADUN
S.A. No. 2150f 2022
Raghuveer SinghVs. Prathama UP Gramin Bank
Date: 19.10.2022
Item No.03
Present: Sh. Jitendra Saxena, Counselfor the Applicant.
Called out,Ld. Counsel for the Applicant present
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has challenged the Demand Notice aswell aspossessionnoticeagainstthe Applicant'sproperty,and also prayed for quashing the sale through public auction dated 29.09.2022.
The Applicant has stated that he is neither borrower nor guarantor in the loan availed by the borrower firm M/s Kanha Enterprises Respondent No. 2. the Applicant is owner and possession holderofland measuring ten (10) Biswa bearing Gata Number 215 situated at Bagaat Rustan Khani Tehsil and District Moradabad. The Applicanthas got ownership of the land through a Dakhili Rehan Nama dated 01.06.1995 signed and executed by Mr. Bihari Lal S/o Chhidda original co-owner of the land, according to section 164 of Uttar Pradesh Zameendari Abolition and Land Reform Act 1950 (hereinafter written as UPZ& ALR Act-1950) since then the Applicant has been holding the uninterrupted and uncontested the possession and the ownership of theland.
He is operatingand running a nursery and growing green vegetables onthe saidland although there are illegally constructed houses in the neighbourhood of the land but neither M.D.A. nor revenueDepartment norstate Government has changed the landuseofthe propertyinquestion. The District Magistrate, Moradabad passed an order in case [\10.202213540002635 under U/s 14 S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act P.s. Katghar, Prathama UP Gramin Bank through authorized Officer Prem Raj Singh Vs Kanha Enterprises Prop. Amrish Kumar dated 16.08.2022 by which District Magistrate Moradabad directed to ACMI Moradabad and C.O. Police Katghar to handover the physical Possession situated at Ward No.65, Mohalla Das Sarai, Near Double Phatak, Moradabad (U.P.) Area 167.95 Sq. Mtrs. (in the name of
ORDER-SHEET Page No
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN
S.A. No. 2150f 2022
Raghuveer SinghVs. Prathama UP Gramin Bank
Smt. Deepti KiranUrf Deepali Agarwal & Smt. Swati Agarwal), Bahi No.l Zild No.7228, pages 315-344., Sr. No. 597, on dated 15.01.2010, Registered at sub Registrar Office, Moradabad. (B) Propertysituated at ward no.65, Mohalla dussarai, Near Double Phatak, Moradabad (U.P.) Area 167.95 Sq. Mtrs (in the name of Smt. Deepti Kiran Urf Deepti Agarwal & smt. Swati Agarwal Bahi No.lZildNo.7233, pages 363-378 sr. No.744 on dated18.01.2010 Registered at sub Registrar office- Moradabad.
a The Applicant has alsostated aboutthe property mortgaged differentversionand claimedthatthe propertyin questionisnotthe partof Gata No.215. The orderofthe Ld. District Magistrate not as perJudgmentpassedbytheHon'bleApexCourtin caseofStandard Charted Bank Vs.V. Noble Kumar.
It is also mentioned that the Respondent Bank has also not complied the procedure of Rule 8(1) of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002.
The Respondent Bank hasnot served the possessionnoticeto the Applicant. The property in question is an agriculturallandand same cannot be sold under S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I.Act, thus any action taken under S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Actis null andvoidabnitio. The Applicant hasstatedthatinthepetitionthattheApplicant is operating and running a nursery and growing green vegetables on the said land although there are illegally constructed houses in the neighbourhoodofthelandbutneither MDA nor revenue Department norstateGovernmenthaschangedtheland-useofthepropertyin question.
On the other the Applicant himself stand on annexure No. 12 which is socalled Rehan Namawith possession and Dakha/i @5ö31T as perapplicant,executedin1995forRs.1.00Lakh (Rupees One Lakh) in relation to immovable property, valued more thanRs. 100/-but not registered.
It has been shown bytheApplicantthatthe Rehan Nama was executed by so called Bihari Lal S/o Chhidda in favour of the
ORDER-SHEET Page No
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN
S.A. No. 2150f 2022
Raghuveer SinghVs. Prathama UP Gramin Bank
Applicant on 01.6.1995forthesaidlandwiththe conditionthathe execute Rehan Namafor10 yearsagainstsaidAaraji(OIT<Mr)in case of non-payment of the said amount of Rs.1.00 Lakh within a period of 10 years the applicant shall beentitledforrightsin the manner as vestedinhim.
The said document is unregistered document even the documentin question showntransactionof Rs.1.00Lakh in relation to immovable property and so called executor Sh. Bihari Lal S/o Chhidda resident of bhadhaur Parangna Tehsil District Moradabad and at that time the Applicant was resident ofvillage Panvadiya Tehsil Meergannnj Distt. Bareilly. The socalled witness Sh. Somnath S/o HariLal Shabad Bareilly and Sh. Bhagwan Das S/o NathuMal R/o Deewaan Khana Bareilly. No accurate address has been mentioned in relation to witnesses. It is also considerable that the writerofthe document was an AdvocateSh.BadriPrasad Gangwar Bareilly i.e. the writer of the document was well acquainted with the prevailing law atthat time.
As perIndianRegistrationAct any property valued more than Rs.100 shall not be transferred in any manner without payment of stamp dutyand shouldbe registered as perIndianRegistration Act. In this case the Applicant and so called executor were resident of Different districts and transactionof Rs.1.00 Lakh is involved in the year 1995, between them, the said amountat that time was so valuable, no any relation between the Applicant and so called executorhas been showninthedocument.In what mannertheyhad comeincontact,notmentionedinthedocumentinquestion. A question arose in the matter whether socalledBihari Lal son of Chhidda was the real person and owner of the property in question asthe propertyin question is situated in Bagaat Rustam Khani Tehsil andDistrict Moradabadatthat time when the socalled document was executed. The applicanthasfiled annexure-10 &11 page139to142 in relation to Gata No. 214, 215 & 216, Eighteen names arementioned includingSh.BihariLal, the area 0.0570hect. is Gata No.215. The said documents have shown the entryof names
ORDER-SHEET Page No
DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL,DEHRADUN
S.A. No. 2150f 2022
Raghuveer SinghVs. Prathama UP Gramin Bank
till 2021 on the basis of order passed by Competent Authority and the documentis connected with fasli year 1426-1431 (01 July 2018 to 30 June 2024) but the name of the Applicant is not find out i.e. no entry of the Applicant name taken place in the said document, even though as perApplicant,he is the owner from 2005 as per his version and possessor from 1995. But no any document has been produced except said document in relation to possession or ownership by the Applicant, by which it can be proved that the applicant is the owner or possessorofthe property in question today.
The areaof ten Biswais more than two times as mentioned in the annexure no.11 present Khatauni. The area asstated by the Applicant in application and showing in the so called Rehan Nama is not match with annexure 11, which is filed by the Applicant himself. The said document does not support the version of the Applicant also.
The document produced bythe Applicant before the Tribunal shows differentsituation as socalledRehan Nama annexure-12has nolegalsanctityinthe eyeof law.
Thereis no matter before the Tribunal, who is the owner of the property in question, the question before the Tribunal is only whether anyright accruedin favourofthe applicant through the said document, onthe basis which applicant has approached the Tribunal. As per above discussion, the said document has no legal sanctity, so norighthas been accruedin favourofapplicant through said Rahan Nama.
Under these circumstances,inthe opinionof theTribunalthis Securitization Application has no forceandliable to be rejected at admission stage.
Hence, dismissed.
Recordbe consigned.
(Umesh Kumar Sharma) Presiding Officer DRT, Dehradun
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Rule 8(1) notice was validly served on the applicant.
Whether agricultural land can be treated as secure asset under S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002.
Whether the applicant has established legal title over the mortgaged property.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V. Noble KumarReferred¶17
Standard Charted Bank Vs. V. Noble Kumar
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Raghuveer Singh
Prathama UP Gramin Bank
Umesh Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
