Disposed

Pyari Mohan Jena v. Collector, Puri

Orissa HC7 Oct 2020WP(C)/13198/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction to handover physical possession of an auction-purchased flat. The court observed the Bank must approach the District Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act to recover possession if retained by the mortgagor. The writ petition was disposed of without further directions.

What did the court decide?

No specific direction granted; petition disposed advising the Bank to seek possession via District Magistrate under SARFAESI Act.

Pyari Mohan Jena Vs Collector, Puri — Orissa HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(C) No.13198 of 2020

¶2

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶3

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶4

07.10.2020

¶5

Mr. P. R. Sutar : For the Petitioner Advocate Mr. D. Mohanty, : For Opposite Party No.1 Additional Government Advocate (State of Orissa)

¶6

ORDER

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties by Video Conferencing mode.

¶8

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Pyari Mohan Jena seeking a direction to the Authorized Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pokhariput-opposite party no.3 to take necessary step/action to handover physical possession of the Fat No.4 (ground floor), Ghanasyam Villa, Gopal Ballav Road in Mouza-Puri Town Unit 25 Gandhighat to the petitioner.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the aforesaid flat through e-auction held by the Oriental Bank of Commerce on 08.11.2019 by depositing the auction sale price of Rs.11,65,000/-. It is submitted that though the petitioner has deposited the entire money with the Bank-opposite party no.3 but so far neither the sale certificate has been issued nor the physical possession of the flat in question has been handed over to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner approached opposite

¶10

-2-

¶11

party no.3 through e-mail dated 20.03.2020 requesting him to issue sale certificate and deliver physical possession of the flat in question and to take steps for registration of sale deed in his favour. However, upon receipt of the e-mail, opposite party no.3 issued the sale certificate of the schedule flat in favour of the petitioner stating therein that “handed over the delivery and possession of property” (Annexure-4), but without giving physical delivery of possession of the said property. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the schedule property mortgaged by the loanee M/s.Aayan Textiles Prof-Mr.Ronit Ray was seized by the Bank but the said loanee is still continuing in possession over the said property yet the Bank has auctioned the same without obtaining physical possession through District Magistrate. It is contended that the petitioner made another representation to opposite party no.3 on 13.05.2020 to take immediate step for delivery of possession of the schedule property to him.

¶12

4. If possession of the property in question is still with the loanee of the opposite parties-Bank, it is for them to take steps to approach the District Magistrate concerned for taking possession of the property, and handing over the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner, and get the sale certificate issued and sale deed registered. This would however

¶13

-3-

¶14

be subject to any legitimate right of the loanee to avail his remedy. The Bank may approach the concerned District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitization, Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of possession of the property in question in accordance with law so as to hand over vacant possession of the same to the petitioner.

¶15

5. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶17

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) (Mohammad Rafiq) Judge Chief Justice

¶18

Pyari Mohan Jena v. Collector, Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pyari Mohan Jena v. Collector, Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Dey Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Chandra Udgata Vs State of Odisha

Tushar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Harmohan Nayak Vs General Manager, Canara Bank

M/S Utkal Stone Works Vs State of Odisha

Sayed Abdul Halim Vs State of Odisha