2016 (9) TMI 1218 - HC - Indian Laws

Auction - complaint about service in relation to immovable property - Held that - As to the relief sought vide paragraph 7(i) and 7(ii), the material documents on record reveals that the land in question was mortgaged by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent-Punjab National Bank and because respondent No.4 failed to repay the loan, the Bank besides initiating proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 also took recourse to proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 2002 and auctioned the land in question which was purchased by respondent No.6 in whose favour sale certificate has been executed and duly registered on 17.06.2010 Since the proceedings initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 has not been questioned and there is accrual of right in favour of respondent No.6 with the registration of valid sale certificate divesting respondent No.1 to 4 of their title over the property in question, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. More particularly when there is no pre existing title in favour of the petitioner. As to direction sought vide paragraph 7(iv), since the District Consumer Forum is a Court of limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. And though it may have a jurisdiction to entertain a complaint about service in relation to immovable property. However, it will be beyond its jurisdiction to adjudicate claim as to title over an immovable property or even assume a title of either of the party in absence of cogent material and admissible document and further direct to execute the sale deed in respect of the land which as apparent was owned by respondent No.4 who mortgaged it in favour of respondent-Punjab National Bank, which, because of the account being NPA was subjected to proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 and was purchased by respondent No.6 in an auction. In the realm of these facts, even the relief sought vide paragraph 7(iv) cannot be granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for vacating the stay order dated 16.06.2015 filed by respondent No.6.
2. Relief sought by the petitioner regarding the plot in question and the house.
3. Quashment of order dated 17.01.2011 and execution of sale deed.
4. Jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum.
5. Dismissal of the petition.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses an application filed by respondent No.6 to vacate the stay order dated 16.06.2015. Respondent No.6 purchased the property in question in an auction under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Act, 2002. The petitioner had forcefully taken possession, leading to legal proceedings. The court allowed respondent No.6's intervention application, considering the circumstances, and directed his impleadment as a respondent.

2. The petitioner sought directions to prevent the sale of the plot and dispossession from the house in question. Additionally, the petitioner requested the quashment of an order and execution of a sale deed. The court examined these requests in detail. Regarding the relief sought for quashing the order dated 17.01.2011, the court referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the need to exhaust remedies under the relevant statute before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The judgment delves into the relief sought concerning the property's ownership and sale deed execution. It was noted that the property was mortgaged to a bank, leading to auction and purchase by respondent No.6. The court found that respondent No.6 had a valid claim over the property due to the registration of a sale certificate, thereby rejecting the petitioner's claims as there was no pre-existing title in favor of the petitioner.

4. The court discussed the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum in adjudicating claims related to immovable property. While the forum may entertain complaints about services concerning immovable property, it cannot decide on property ownership without substantial evidence. In this case, the court found that the relief sought regarding the execution of a sale deed could not be granted due to the property's ownership history and legal proceedings.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's claims. The interim order dated 16.06.2015 was vacated, and all interlocutory applications were disposed of without any costs imposed. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised, considering legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.