Dismissed

Sh Khusinder Singh v. Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank

DRT28 Oct 2025SA/64/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single bench disposed of this Section 17 application filed under the SARFAESI Act by the applicant against the Respondent Bank. The court dismissed the application, noting that the record admitted the security interest was created only for a specific land portion, and directed the Registrar to send a copy of the order to the Revenue Officer for correction.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; court directed send copy of order to the Revenue Officer for correction in the revenue record.

Sh Khusinder Singh versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No.64/2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/64/2024 SH. KHUSINDER SINGH Vs HIMACHAL PRADESH GRAMIN BANK

¶4

28.10.2025 Item No.20 Present: Mr. Iqbal Mohd., Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. D.S. Bainola, Counsel for respondent Bank.

¶5

K.hushinder Singh (Applicant) has filed this Securitization

¶6

Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARF AESI Act), against the Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank and another (Respondents).

¶7

The case of the Applicant is that in the year 2013 he had raised a loan ofRs.5.00 Lacs for the renovation of his house. To secure the same, he had created security interest in respect of the following property(ies): -

¶8

Land situated in Khata Khatoni No.44/46 Khasra No. 600 measuring 0 Bigha 6 Biswa being ½ share out of total land measuring 0 Bigha 12 Biswa situated at Village Kanganwal HB No.88, Tehsil Nalagarh as per jamabandi of 2008-09.

¶9

Applicant has alleged that when he checked up the revenue record he found that the lien of the Bank has been recorded in respect of 12 Biswas of land instead of 6 Biswas of land. He further states that the secured asset is agricultural land. He had written many letters to the Tehsildar for rectifying the record. He has alleged that the Regional Revenue Officer, Patwari has also vide his report dated 18.11.2019 admitted that only 6 Biswa is under mortgage on the basis of mortgage deed No.881 dated 07.06.2013 and 1

¶10

SA No.64/2024

¶11

mutation No.580. He has already paid Rs.5.00 Lacs. However, the Bank has wrongly declared the account NP A and issued the demand notice on 14.11.2023 demanding a sum of Rs.6,08,657/- as on 14.11.2023. The Bank has also issued possession notice on 05.02.2024. Applicant has alleged that Bank cannot proceed against the property which is not mortgaged with the Bank. The secured asset is agricultural land and exempt from the provision of the SARF AESI Act. The demand notice is defective and there is no CERSAI Registration.

¶12

Respondent in the reply has alleged that Bank has complied with all the fonnalities and the notices were duly served upon the Applicant.

¶13

In this SA, the issue which has been raised by the Applicant is that despite the fact, that he had simply mortgaged 6 Biswas of land, yet, the Bank has managed to get the mutation done in respect of 12 Biswas of land which is illegal. He further argues that secured asset is agricultural land.

¶14

On the other hand, Mr. Bainola, argues that Bank had given the loan for the renovation of house which shows that the secured asset is not agricultural land. He has further alleged that in the mortgage deed it is specifically mentioned that only 6 Biswas of land was mortgaged. He has further argued that even during the pendency of the SA, many times the matter was taken up and the letters were written to the Revenue Officer to correct the revenue record. Despite the fact, that many a time Applicant was directed to appear before the authority concerned, yet, he did not put in appearance. Mr. Bainola, argues that Bank is not at fault. In fact, the Applicant in order to stop the recovery of the Bank has raked up an issue, with which the Bank is not concerned.

¶15

¶16

SA No.64/2024

¶17

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶18

I am of the considered view, that there is no merit in the SA. It is admitted on the record that the Bank had created security interest only for 6 Biswas of land. A copy of this order be sent to the Revenue Officer, concerned directing him to make the necessary correction in the revenue record. In view of this, SA stands dismissed. All the pending IAs, if any are also stand disposed off accordingly.

¶19

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all tff e parties, as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliancl /

¶20

Pronounced in open court Dated: 28.10.2025 PASK AJ

¶21

Sh Khusinder Singh v. Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Khusinder Singh v. Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank

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

Canara Bank versus Aadinath Plastics

Canara Bank versus Harjit Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Sh. Sukhraj Singh

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. versus Krishna Pratap Singh Chandel

Hdfc Bank versus Sunita Tayal

State Bank of India versus Sri Ashwin Lakshmikanthan