Dismissed

Balbir Singh v. Bank of Baroda

DRT6 Jun 2026SA/73/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application filed under SARFAESI Act. The court held the application time-barred, rejected the application for condonation of delay as uncredible, and ruled that permissive possession as a licensee precludes a claim of ownership by adverse possession.

What did the court decide?

Set aside SA; set aside order dated 13.08.2019 by ADM Jalandhar; restrain respondents from taking possession.

Balbir Singh versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 73 of 2026

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 73 of 2026 Balbir Singh

¶4

Versus

¶5

Bank of Baroda and others

¶6

Dated: 06.06.2026

¶7

Item No. 04

¶8

Argued by: Mr. Abnash Singh and Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Counsel for Applicant.

¶9

Mr.CS Pasricha and Mr.Kamal Sharma, Counsel for Respondent Bank.

¶10

None for other Respondents.

¶11

Balbir Singh (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against Bank of Baroda and others (Respondents).

¶12

Alongwith the SA, Applicant has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of five days in filing the present SA.

¶13

Admittedly, earlier Applicant had filed SA No. 185 of 2019. However, on 31.08.2022, the said SA was dismissed by this Tribunal as his counsel made a statement at the Bar that he did not want to pursue the SA. Applicant had also filed CWP No. 5579-2020 in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the order dated 13.09.2019 obtained by Bank of Baroda, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Vide order dated 14.01.2026, Hon’ble the High Court ordered that in case the petitioner approach the DRT within a period of thirty days from 14.01.2026, then the earlier order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the DRT-I, Chandigarh dismissing SA No. 185 of 2019, shall not come in way of the petitioner and disposed of the writ petition. It would be appropriated at this stage to reproduce the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 5579-2020.

¶14

¶15

SA No. 73 of 2026

¶16

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶17

XXx

¶18

5. In view of above, the petitioner can raise all grounds of challenge to an order passed u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act before jurisdictional DRT. If the petitioner does so within a period of thirty days from today, then the earlier order dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure R-2/4) passed by DRT-I, Chandigarh, allowing withdrawal of SA/185/2019, shall not come in way of the petitioner.

¶19

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

(Sheel Nagu) Chief Justice (Sanjiv Berry) Judge

¶21

Thereafter, Applicant filed the present SA on 19.02.2026. As mentioned earlier, alongwith the SA, Applicant has also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶22

Applicant in the present SA has alleged that property bearing No. EJ209, Chahar Bagh, Near Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar, measuring 336 sq. foot was originally owned and possessed by late Aya Singh son of Mehar Singh. After his death, this property devolved upon his legal heirs. In 1977, Aya Singh had expressed his desire to him (Applicant) to renovate the property. In 1977, Aya Singh gave this property on license to him (Applicant). Applicant renovated the same by incurring huge amount and started using the same as a godown to store the products of M/s Nahan Foundary. It was mutually agreed between him (Applicant) and Aya Singh that the Applicant would be licensee in the property till the time the oral license is not terminated. However, soon after the renovation of the property by the Applicant, late Aya Singh asked him to vacate the property. However, Applicant expressed his inability to vacate the same as he had spent huge amount on the renovation of the property. In May 1978, Aya Singh died and his legal heirs asked him

¶23

¶24

SA No. 73 of 2026

¶25

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶26

(Applicant) to vacate the property. Again Applicant informed him that he had spent huge money on the renovation of the property and there has been dealership by Nahan Foundary. Accordingly, he could not vacate the same. On 13.10.1978, legal heirs of late Aya Singh sold the property to Prabhpal Singh (Respondent No. 3), who was employee of the Applicant and was working in the said store. It is stated that Prabhpal Singh is brother-in-law of the Applicant and he was fully aware about the status and possession of the Applicant over the property in dispute. Despite that he purchased the property. He has never paid any rent to Aya Singh and his legal heirs. In December 1981, Prabhpal Singh tried to compel the Applicant to hand over the disputed property to him. However, he told Prabhpal Singh that he (Applicant) was not ready to vacate the property. Applicant states that he is registered with Sale Tax Department as well as with the Income Tax Department. On 22.04.1996, Applicant filed a complaint against Prabhpal Singh with the Police. The Police visited the spot and after inquiry the Police reported that he (Applicant) is in possession since 1977. On 13.04.2004, he (Applicant) filed another complaint with the Police and after due verification the Police reported that he (Applicant) is in continuous possession over the property. On 08.01.2020, Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 88-2020, titled Balbir Singh versus Prabhpal Singh and other , in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the property by way of adverse possession. The said Civil Suit is pending. In that Civil Suit, Bank had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Vide order dated 11.08.2025, the said application was dismissed by the Civil Court. Bank has also filed Civil Revision No. 8434-2025 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court against the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the Civil Court, which is still pending. Applicant alleged that Prabhpal Singh realized that he will not be able to take the possession of the property. Accordingly, he, in-collusion with the then Manager Inderjit Singh, his brother-in-law (real SADDU ), got

¶27

¶28

SA No. 73 of 2026

¶29

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶30

prepared a false legal scrutiny report dated 26.03.2009 to obtain the loan. In April 2009, Prabhpal Singh, in connivance with the Bank officials, raised a loan of Rs. 10 lacs from Bank of Baroda on the security of this property. In the year 2014, Prabhpal Singh intentionally became a defaulter and the account turned NPA. Accordingly, Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, to Prabhpal Singh and his wife Baljinder Kaur, who stood as guarantor. Applicant alleged that he was not aware of the fact that the loan was obtained on the security of property in question, of which he became owner in 1996 by way of adverse possession. On coming to know of the loan, on 30.12.2016, he issued a legal notice to the Bank as well as Prabhpal Singh. On 14.01.2017, Bank replied to the notice. In the reply, dated 14.01.2017, Bank alleged that it would initiate criminal proceedings against the Applicant as well as Prabhpal Singh. However, nothing was done. On 28.03.2017, he sent another legal notice to the Bank. On 01.08.2019, Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act against Prabhpal Singh, before District Magistrate, Jalandhar. On 07.08.2019, Bank published notice in the newspaper for putting the property for auction on 13.09.2019, of which he (Applicant) was in possession. Vide order dated 13.09.2019, ADM, Jalandhar allowed the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and granted permission to Bank to take the possession. ADM, Jalandhar also ordered that Commissioner of Police/SSP, Rural and Tehsildar, Jalandhar to pro vide necessary assistance to the Bank for taking the possession. Applicant filed objections dated 08.11.2019 before the Tehsildar and brought all these facts to his notice. However, the Bank did not pay any heed to the objections. Again on 23.10.2019, ADM, Jalandhar, while referring the order dated 13.09.2019, directed SHO to pro vide necessary police help. On 26.10.2019, the police officials were apprised of the order dated 23.10.2019, passed by ADM, Jalandhar. On 11.11.2019, police submitted his report wherein it was stated that the Applicant was in exclusive possession of the property since 1978 and

¶31

¶32

SA No. 73 of 2026

¶33

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶34

the same is being used for keeping goods. In the present SA, Applicant has challenged the order dated 13.09.2019, passed by ADM, Jalandhar. It is alleged that under the law, ADM, Jalandhar has no power to pass such an order. He was not given any hearing by the ADM, Jalandhar. There has been violation of principles of natural justice. It is alleged that Prabhpal Singh (Respondent No. 3) was not competent to obtain the loan against the security of the property in question. The Bank did not carry out spot inspection. The loan was given at the instance of Inderjit Singh the than Manager of BOB, who is brother-in-law of Respondent No. 3. In case, Respondent No. 3 succeeds in his unlawful acts, Applicant would suffer an irreparable loss as he is in adverse possession since 1977-78.

¶35

On these facts, Applicant filed the present SA and prayed that the SA be allowed and the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by ADJ, Jalanhdar be set aside; sale certificate dated 11.10.2019 be set aside and the Respondents be restrained from taking the possession of the property.

¶36

Bank, in reply to the SA, has denied the case of the Applicant. Bank has alleged that Applicant’s son Jung Bahadur had participated in the auction. However, he was not the highest bidder. The highest bid was given by Mr. Pankaj Kumar son of Deepak Kumar. Accordingly, the property was sold to him and sale certificate has also been issued in his favour. Bank has alleged that earlier, Applicant had also filed Civil Suit No. 88-2020, before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar. In that Civil Suit, Bank had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Though, vide order dated 11.08.2025, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 has been dismissed by the Civil Court, yet, the Civil Court has not granted any stay to the Applicant. Bank alleged that a Civil Revision against the said order is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, which is also pending.

¶37

¶38

SA No. 73 of 2026

¶39

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶40

I have heard Mr. Abnash Singh, counsel for the Applicant and Mr.CS Pasricha, counsel for the Respondent Bank.

¶41

Mr.Abnash Singh, counsel for the Applicant has argued that the Applicant is the owner by of adverse possession since 1977. Counsel submitted that his possession has ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession. The Bank, in connivance with Prabhpal Singh (Respondent No. 3) had sanctioned the loan to Prabhpal Singh, of which Prabhpal Singh was not in possession. Bank did not carry out spot inspection while granting the loan to Prabhpal Singh. Mr.Abnash Singh has submitted that in these circumstances the SA be allowed and the Respondents be restrained from taking the possession of the property.

¶42

Per contra , Mr.Pasricha, counsel for the Respondent Bank has argued that this is false and frivolous SA. Applicant admits that he had entered into the property as a licensee. Mr. Pasricha submitted that this means Applicant had only permissive possession. The permissive possession never turns into adverse possession. Mr.Pasricha submitted that earlier Applicant had also filed SA No. 185 of 2019, which he had himself withdrawn on 31.08.2022, by making a statement before this Tribunal that he did not want to pursue the SA. Applicant had also approached the Hon’ble High Court, which vide order dated 14.01.2026 had directed him (Applicant) that in case he approaches this Tribunal within 30 days, the DRT would hear the case of the Applicant on merits. Despite that, Applicant did not file this SA till 19.02.2026. Mr.Pasircha submitted that the SA is time-barred. The limitation for filing the SA had expired much earlier in 2019, when he had come to know of the SARFAESI action. Mr.Pasricha submitted that in case the limitation is computed from the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, still the SA is timebarred. Winding up his arguments, Mr. Pasricha submitted that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶43

I have considered the rival contentions. 6

¶44

SA No. 73 of 2026

¶45

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶46

I have already given the chronology of events in the opening part of the order.

¶47

Admittedly, Applicant had filed SA No. 185 of 2019, which was withdrawn by him on 31.08.2022 by making a statement that he did not want to pursue the SA. Though, after the dismissal of earlier SA, Applicant had no right to file a fresh SA, yet, considering the order of the Hon’ble High Court, this SA is being considered. However, this deserves to be mentioned that vide order dated 14.01.2026, the Hon’ble High Court granted him thirty days time to file the SA. However, Applicant filed the present SA on 19.02.2026. Accordingly, the SA is time-barred.

¶48

I have also perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the Applicant. In the application, Applicant has alleged that his counsel had intimated about the order dated 14.01.2026 after 4-5 days from the passing of the order. Thereafter, there was death in the family and he had to rush to Karnal. After coming from Karnal, Applicant collected the papers and filed the present SA.

¶49

I am of the considered view that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act contains only a cock-and-bull story which cannot be believed. It is admitted on the record that Applicant’s son had participated in the auction. However, he was not the highest bidder. Considering the totally of circumstances, I am of the considered view that this is a frivolous SA. Once, Applicant admits that he had entered into the property as a licensee, he has no right to claim adverse possession. I am of the considered view that there is no

¶50

merit in the present SA. The same is hereby dismissed .

¶51

All the pending IAs, if any, are disposed of, accordingly.

¶52

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶53

Pronounced in open court Dated: 06.06.2026 Manoj

¶54

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶55

Balbir Singh v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. Bank of Baroda

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

Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited versus Ms Urban Whiz

Canara Bank versus Muttappa Bagennavar

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Hanumatharaju S and Others

Central Bank of India versus M/S Shoppers Stop

Axis Bank versus Jitender Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Priyanka Mishra