2019 (2) TMI 2113 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge to order passed by the District Magistrate u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - petitioner's grievance is that he is the owner of the property in question, and therefore, the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 deserves to be quashed - HELD THAT - In the present case, respondent No.3 is driving the title of the property in question on the basis of sale deed dated 05.06.1995 and the petitioner is claiming title on the basis of sale dated 04.02.2016. There are allegations and counter allegations in the matter. The petitioner himself has stated in the writ petition that later on after purchasing the property on 04.02.2016, he came to know that some other sale deed is also in existence dated 05.06.1995. Nothing prevented the petitioner to take action with quite promptitude by filing a civil suit. The petitioner woke up from slumber only after the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.1 on 10.11.2017. In the present case, the respondent No.2 is proceeding ahead against the owner of the property i.e. respondent No.3 on account of the fact that the property was mortgaged with the respondent No.2. The sale deed on the basis of which, respondent No.3 is driving title is of the year 1995. This Court cannot comment upon the sale deed of the year 1995 nor the sale deed dated 04.02.2016, as claims and counter claims have been raised by the petitioner as well as by respondents No.3 and 4. The petitioner himself has stated in the writ petition that while he was obtaining loan for raising construction on the plot, he came to know that respondent No.3 has obtained loan from respondent No.2 by mortgaging the plots on the strength of two registered sale deed executed in the year 1995. Nothing prevented the petitioner to file a civil suit immediately in the matter. The petitioner kept quiet and it only after the respondent No.2 has initiated action against respondent No.3 and after an order has been passed on 10.11.2017, the present petition has been filed. At present, there is an order against the petitioner dated 10.11.2017, which is certainly an appealable order and petitioner certainly has a right to place all grounds in support of his averments before the appellate authority. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1 - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 based on ownership dispute and alleged forged sale deed.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the District Magistrate under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner claimed ownership of two residential plots based on a sale deed executed in 2016, while respondent No.3 claimed ownership based on a sale deed from 1995. The petitioner alleged the 1995 sale deed was forged as the original owners had passed away before the date mentioned. Respondent No.3 contended that the petitioner's claim was false and that the property was rightfully mortgaged to respondent No.2. The court noted the conflicting claims and emphasized the availability of an appeal remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts. The court cited precedents highlighting the bar on civil suits in such matters and the need to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for resolution.

The court referred to the statutory provision of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the remedy of appeal available to aggrieved parties. It noted the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedure and jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in matters related to enforcement of security interests. The court highlighted the necessity for the petitioner to pursue the appeal route instead of seeking relief directly from the civil court. The judgment underscored the need for the petitioner to present all grounds before the appellate authority for a comprehensive review of the case.

In light of the legal provisions and precedents cited, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for further redressal. The court maintained that the order dated 10.11.2017 was appealable, and the petitioner had the right to challenge it before the appropriate forum. The judgment concluded by granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the matter through the prescribed appellate process, emphasizing adherence to the legal framework governing such disputes.