The South Indian Bank Ltd vs The Special Deputy Collector And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21608 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 17029 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
          EAST FORT BRANCH, ST. JOHNS ARCADE, THRISSUR-680
          005,REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, DRT CELL,
          MRS.JILU HANNAH EAPEN

          BY ADVS.
          K.N.SIVASANKARAN
          SUNIL SHANKER
          VIDYA GANGADHARAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
          LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWA)0 KODUNGALLUR,
          THRISSUR,PIN-680 664

    2     NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI)
          KERALA REGIONAL, KERALA REGIONAL OFFICE, TC 36/574-1,
          KRISHNA KRIPA, PALKULANGARA JUNCTION, PALKULANGARA,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT
          DIRECTOR

    3     NOORUDHEEN SHA
          AMBALATH HOUSE, THAIKULAM.P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
          THRISSUR-680 569

          BY ADVS.
          MATHEWS K.PHILIP
          E.A.BIJUMON


          SMT.RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN      GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17029 OF 2021
                                 2

                          JUDGMENT

The South Indian Bank Limited, which is a

Banking Company registered under the Companies

Act, 1913, and operating under the provisions

of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, is the

petitioner in this writ petition; and they seek

a direction to the 1st respondent - Competent

Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA),

appointed under the provisions of the National

Highway Act ("NH Act" for short), to release to

them the amounts determined as compensation for

acquisition of 3.24 Ares of land and buildings

thereon, comprised of in Sy.No.191/7 of

Thalikulam Village.

2. The petitioner explains that the

property in question was equitably mortgaged to

them by its owner as collateral security for a

loan availed by him and that when he defaulted

payment of same, action was commenced against WP(C) NO. 17029 OF 2021

it along with various others, under the

provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the

SARFAESI Act' for brevity); but that before it

could be brought to sale, it was acquired for a

public purpose.

3. The petitioner says that certain

amounts have been determined as compensation

for the property in question by the CALA; and

consequently that, they being the holder of 1st

charge over it, are entitled to the said amount

to be paid into the loan facility. The

petitioner, therefore, prays that the 1st

respondent be directed to release the

compensation amount with respect to the

acquired property without any further delay.

4. The afore submissions and plea made by

Sri.Sunilsankar, learned Standing Counsel for

the petitioner Bank was not resisted by WP(C) NO. 17029 OF 2021

Sri.Bijumon - learned counsel for the 3rd

respondent; but he argued that if the Bank is

permitted to accept the compensation amount and

to adjust it against the loan outstandings, his

client's request for settlement of the said

account and for sparing his residential

property may also be directed to be considered

by them. He submitted that he is making his

plea because, otherwise, once the Bank accepts

the money from the 1st respondent and adjusts it

into the loan account, his client would be left

without any remedy with respect to the balance

amount, which the Bank is now claiming and

would be, consequently left in the lurch, with

even his residential property being proceeded

against under "the SARFAESI Act".

5. In reply, Sri.S.Sunilsankar submitted

that the 3rd respondent cannot seek a prayer as

afore in this writ petition because, he is only

the respondent. He, however submitted that WP(C) NO. 17029 OF 2021

since Annexure R3(b) application has already

been made by the petitioner seeking settlement

of the loan account, the Bank is willing to

consider the same, after giving him all

eligible benefits, as may be entitled under any

Scheme, if any available.

6. When I consider the afore submissions, I

find favour with Sri.Sunilsankar because the

compensation in question relates to a property

which has been, admittedly, equitably mortgaged

to the Bank by the 3rd respondent. Hence the

said respondent cannot claim any right over the

amount - and I record that Sri.Bijumon, his

learned counsel, also concedes to this.

Obviously, therefore, the amount will have to

go into the loan account and the 3rd respondent

is at full liberty to approach the Bank and

seek that the account be settled as per the

offer made by him in Annexure R3(b), subject to

the view of the latter.

WP(C) NO. 17029 OF 2021

Resultantly and since the 3rd respondent

does not oppose the grant of the relief to the

petitioner with respect to the release of the

compensation into the loan account, I order

this writ petition in the following manner:

a) The Bank is at liberty to approach the

1st respondent - CALA with a copy of this

judgment and the said Authority will,

thereupon, issue a cheque, for the amount of

compensation determined with respect to the

property in question, in favour of the Bank,

which shall thereupon be credited by them into

the loan facility of the 3rd respondent.

b) The 3rd respondent will have full liberty to

approach the competent Authority of the Bank

for the reliefs sought for by him in Annexure

R3(b) and the said Authority will consider the

same, after affording them an opportunity of

being heard; thus leading to the settlement of

the loan account, as far as it is practically WP(C) NO. 17029 OF 2021

possible.

c. If the request of the petitioner made

in Annexure R3(b) is rejected for any reason,

then I leave liberty to him to invoke remedies

as are available to him with respect to his

residential property; for which purpose, all

contentions of the rival parties are left open,

without being decided in this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/02/11/2021 WP(C) NO. 17029 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17029/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.540 OF 1998, VADANAPPILLY SRO

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO.1154 OF 2019 CJM COURT, THRISSUR

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NOTICE ADVERTISED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AND TRANSCRIBED COPY THEREOF

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

Exhibit R3A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE

Exhibit R3B TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL DATED 24.09.2021