2022 (2) TMI 1276 - HC - Indian Laws

Sanction of Building plan - case of petitioner is that the plan has been got sanctioned by misrepresentation and not disclosing that there is litigation pending in respect of the subject property - sale of the subject property under the SARFAESI Act - HELD THAT - The remedy of the petitioner to challenge the sale is either before the DRT or DRAT, which remedy petitioner has already initiated and admittedly there is no interim protection granted to the petitioner. Thus, petitioner cannot approach this Court by seeking to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to indirectly seek the same relief which petitioner has failed to get from DRT and DRAT. The contention of the petitioner that representation of the petitioner given to the Deputy Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation has remained unanswered and a direction be issued to decide the representation is also of no consequence - The Commissioner, MCD is not the authority to comment upon the proceedings which are pending before the DRT or DRAT under the SARFAESI ACT. Commissioner has to act upon the sale certificate issued and upon the title of the property that today stands vested in respondent Nos.2 to 4. This Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of a building plan sanction due to alleged misrepresentation and pending litigation regarding the property.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the quashing of a sanction letter for a building plan concerning a property in New Delhi, alleging misrepresentation and failure to disclose pending litigation. The property was previously owned by the petitioner and later sold in a court auction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 after proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner challenged the sale through proceedings before the DRT and DRAT but did not receive interim protection. The only pending litigation regarding the property was related to the auction sale and the sale certificate issued under the SARFAESI Act, with no other disputes reported. The court noted that the petitioner had no interim protection from the DRT or DRAT against the sale to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It was determined that the petitioner's remedy was to challenge the sale through the DRT or DRAT, and as no interim protection was granted, the petitioner could not seek relief through Article 226 of the Constitution indirectly. The court emphasized that the Municipal Corporation Commissioner could not intervene in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, as the property's title vested in respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Given the lack of other litigation regarding the property, the court declined to exercise discretionary powers under Article 226 and dismissed the petition, clarifying that the decision did not prejudice the parties' rights or the ongoing proceedings before the DRT and DRAT. The court ordered the order to be uploaded on the High Court website and forwarded to the counsels via email for reference.