Delhi High Court
Sandeep Yadav vs Bank Of India And Ors. on 17 August, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~29.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7833/2015
% Judgment dated 17th August, 2015
SANDEEP YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Bharat Bhushan Bhatia and Ms.Vijay
Lakshmi, Advs.
versus
BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 15555/2015.
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7833/2015
3. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to set aside the
Order dated 13.5.2015 passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as "DRAT") in Misc.Appeal No.150/2015 and the
Order dated 24.3.2015 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal-III (hereinafter
referred to as "DRT"). The petitioner also seeks to restrain the respondents
for conducting sale of the suit property bearing Khasra No.126, measuring
250 sq. Yards situated at lal dora of Village Nangloi Jaat, New Delhi. It is
also prayed that respondents be directed to deseal the property and return
the goods lying in the property.
4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that his father,
Sh.Nahar Singh, had sold 1000 sq. yards of land and built up area in terms
of Sale Deed dated 1.3.1999 to one Sh.Sanjeev Malhotra. Sh.Sanjeev
Malhotra thereafter sought financial assistance from the respondent Bank
and created a mortgage of the land by deposit of title deeds. Aggrieved by
the notice of auction affixed at the property bearing Khasra No.126,
measuring 250 sq. Yards at lal dora of Village Nangloi Jaat, New Delhi,
led to the filing of SA before the DRT.
5. The case set up by the petitioner before the DRT was that the petitioner
was a bonafide purchaser of the property in question on the basis of a
Khatauni, in which his father, Sh.Nahar Singh, was shown as the owner of
the property. With regard to the Sale Deed executed in favour of
Sh.Sanjeev Malhotra, the stand of the petitioner was that no money had
been paid and time was sought to file a civil suit. The DRT noticed in the
Order dated 24.3.2015 that as per Page 3 of the Sale Deed amounts to the
tune of Rs.2.00 lakhs were paid by a cheque. Since the SA filed by the
petitioner was dismissed on 24.3.2015, the petitioner approached the
DRAT by filing Miscellaneous Application No.150/2015, but met with
the same fate, as the DRAT dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein
for similar reasons.
6. Mr.Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned
Orders dated 13.5.2015 and 24.3.2015 are erroneous and bad in law. It is
further submitted that the DRT and DRAT have failed to take into account
that the petitioner is a bonafide owner of the property measuring 250 sq.
yards, which is in his occupation and possession and which was gifted out
of the ancestral property by his father, who is one of the recorded legal
heirs as per the revenue records. Learned counsel also contends that the
documents placed on record prima facie establishes the petitioner to be
the owner of the land measuring 250 sq. yards.
7. During the course of hearing, we had requested learned counsel for the
petitioner to point out a single document to show that the petitioner is the
owner of the land in question. We had also requested counsel for the
petitioner to point out as to whether any gift deed or sale deed was
executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner,
however, no such documents was pointed out.
8. Having perused the impugned Order dated 13.5.2015 passed by DRAT
and the Order dated 24.3.2015 passed by DRT, we find that no such
ground was raised by the petitioner either before the DRT or the DRAT.
There is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner is the owner of
any part of the property/land in question. Accordingly, we find no
infirmity in the impugned Orders passed by the DRT and DRAT. There is
no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goods of
the petitioner are lying in the property in question and further the Tribunal
has published an auction notice with respect to the land, which does not
form part of the sale deed and, thus, prior to the auction the property
should be demarcated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
would seek demarcation of the land as his father was the owner of 5000
sq. yards and only 1000 sq. yards is alleged to have been sold.
CM APPL. 15554/2015 (STAY)
10. Application stands dismissed in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 17, 2015 msr
