Ramesh Kumar Soni vs. Punjab National Bank

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in law. The Court reasoned that the petitioners had challenged only the consequential order issued by the Naib Tahsildar for the delivery of possession, without challenging the principal order dated January 8, 2018, passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Court noted that petitioner No. 1 had admitted before the District Magistrate that he had taken a loan and sought time to pay the balance amount. Furthermore, petitioners No. 2 to 4 had not raised any objections before the District Magistrate. The Court found no merit in the petition, stating that the challenge made by petitioners No. 2 to 4 could not be taken cognizance of at this belated stage. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging the execution of an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, without challenging the order itself, is not maintainable. The writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioners granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law or under the SARFAESI Act.

Facts

The petitioners, including Ramesh Kumar Soni and his family members, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 23, 2018, passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Kharora. This order directed petitioner No. 1 to hand over possession of the subject land to Punjab National Bank. The petitioners claimed the land was abadi land and that they had interests in it. Petitioner No. 1 had previously approached the District Magistrate on October 16, 2017, admitting to a loan of ₹14,70,000, having paid ₹5,89,000, and requesting four months' time to pay the balance due to circumstances like demonetization, GST implementation, and crop damage. The District Magistrate had passed an order on January 8, 2018, directing assistance for delivery of possession to the bank. The petitioners did not challenge the District Magistrate's order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), but only the consequential order of the Naib Tahsildar.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when it challenges a consequential order of the Naib Tahsildar for delivery of possession without challenging the principal order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the order directing them to hand over possession was unsustainable as they had interests in the abadi land and their possession should be protected. They contended that the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate were flawed. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, including the bank and state authorities, implicitly argued through the Court's findings that the writ petition was not maintainable as it failed to challenge the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. They also highlighted that petitioner No. 1 had admitted the loan and the delay in payment before the District Magistrate, and that petitioners No. 2 to 4 had not raised any objections at that stage.