Madras High Court
The Authorised Officer vs Smt.Sarala Bardia on 20 October, 2021
W.A. No.372 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A. No.372 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.3090 of 2018
The Authorised Officer,
Canara Bank,
Formerly Syndicate Bank,
Regional Office- 1,
166, T.V.Samy Road (West),
R.S.Puram,
Coimbatore - 641 002. ... Appellant
versus
Smt.Sarala Bardia ... Respondent
(Cause title amended vide Court order dated 03.08.2021 by
TRJ and VSGJ in C.M.P.No.11662 of 2021 in W.A.No.372/2018)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
allow the above Appeal and thereby set aside the order dated 20.01.2017 in
W.P.No.15311 of 2013.
For Appellant :Mr.P.Sreenivasulu
For Respondent :Mr.S.Thamizharasan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.372 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA,J.)
The Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank has brought this appeal
against the order dated 20.01.2017 passed in W.P.No.15311 of 2013,
wherein the learned Single Judge, finding fault with the appellant bank in
selling 6.50 cents instead of 3.70 cents, imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- for the
lethargic attitude in making the writ petitioner believe that the land in
question is having an extent of 6.50 cents instead of 3.70 cents.
2.The case of the respondent/writ petitioner is that on seeing the
notice inviting the public to take part in the public auction, she participated
in the said auction held on 02.02.2012 believing that the property situated at
Door Nos.2/393 & 394, Kengari Revenue Village Panchayat, comprised in
S.No.193, Kilkotagiri, Nilgiris District is having 6.50 cents. After she was
declared as a successful bidder, she has also deposited the entire amount of
Rs.11,15,000/- by way of Demand Draft and cash she was issued an interim
certificate by the appellant bank on 02.02.2012. Immediately, on payment of
the entire amount, she was issued the sale certificate and the possession of
the property was also handed over to her on the same day. After taking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.372 of 2018
possession, she applied for scrutinizing the revenue records and she was
informed that the old Survey No.193 has been changed into new Survey
No.404/8, which in turn, has been subdivided as Survey Nos.404/8A, 8B,
8C and one Veerabadrasamy, whose property was brought for auction by the
bank, was the owner of Survey No.404/8B and the extent of the property
that belonged to him, was only 0.01.5 hectares, which works out to 3.70
cents. On receipt of the said information, she made a physical measurement
of the property and to her shock and surprise, she found that the total extent
of the property measures only 3.70 cents and not 6.50 cents as represented
by the appellant bank at the time of bringing the property for auction and at
the time of giving interim certificate on 02.02.2012. Therefore, she
approached the appellant bank on number of occasions to clarify the same
and requested the bank to either physically convey the 6.50 cents or to
refund Rs.11,15,000/- with interest from 02.02.2012. The appellant bank
bent upon to pressurize her to receive the sale certificate by showing the
total extent as 6.50 cents. On the other hand, the respondent had insisted the
bank to refund a sum of Rs.11,15,000/-, which was paid by her during the
auction sale on 02.02.2012 along with interest from that day onwards till the
date of actual payment. The respondent issued a legal notice to the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.372 of 2018
bank on 08.04.2013 and requested the appellant bank to refund the sum of
Rs.11,15,000/- with interest from 02.02.2012. Since the appellant bank has
not come forward to resolve the issue, the respondent filed the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the
appellant bank to refund the sum of Rs.11,15,000/- with interest @ 18% per
annum from 02.02.2012.
3.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the appellant bank
justifying the stand that the bank cannot be held responsible for selling 6.50
cents on the premise that as per the sale by inviting tenders by public
auction in the Hindu dated 02.01.2012, the property was sold as is where is
condition. Moreover, before submitting the tender to purchase the property
in public auction, the respondent duly inspected the property and verified
the extent, boundaries, measurements and nature of the property and after
satisfying herself about the correctness of the property in question,
participated in the auction held on 02.02.2012. Therefore, the appellant
bank cannot be found fault with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.372 of 2018
4.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the original
owner of the property, at the time of approaching the appellant bank, has
mortgaged the property by mis-representing that the property in question
was having only 6.50 cents, the appellant Bank, accepting the same, has
come forward to sell the said property in public auction held on 02.02.2012
to the extent of 6.50 cents to the respondent. When the appellant Bank
invited the tenders from the public for purchase of the land to the extent of
6.50 cents, the respondent, after verifying the land in question, came
forward to participate in the public auction, where, he was declared as the
highest bidder. Therefore, the contention made by the respondent that the
property sold away in public auction by the appellant bank to the extent of
3.70 cents and not 6.50 cents is un-justified.
5.We do not find any merit or justification whatsoever in the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant for the
reason that when there was a dispute on the extent of the land in question,
the Tahsildar, Kothagiri has surveyed the land with the Assistant of the
Surveyor and addressed a letter dated 01.03.2013 to the Bank Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Kothagiri stating that the land in S.No.404/8B having an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.372 of 2018
extent of 0.01.5 hectares, which works out to 3.70 cents, belonged to
Mr.Veerabadhirasamy. Therefore, when the Bank Manager, Syndicate
Bank, Kothagiri was fully aware of the fact by the letter dated 01.03.2013
issued by the Tahsildar, Kothagiri that the land in question is having only
3.70 cents, the appellant, being the public institution, ought to have
mentioned in the auction notice correctly the extent of the land as 3.70
cents, but not 6.50 cents, which they have miserably failed to do. Learned
Single Judge, considering the report of the Advocate Commissioner that
subject property situated at Door Nos.2/393 and 394, Kengari Revenue
Village Panchayat, Old Survey No.193 and New Survey No.404/8B,
Kilkotagiri, Nilgiris District is only 3.70 cents, but not 6.50 cents and
considering the fact that the appellant bank, being a public institution, ought
to have measured the property before bringing the property in the public
auction and finding fault with the lethargic attitude of the appellant bank,
has allowed the above writ petition by imposing costs of Rs.50,000/-,
which, in our view, cannot be found fault with.
6.When the learned Single Judge has minutely dealt with the issue
and exposed the wrong stand taken by the appellant bank that they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.372 of 2018
committed serious mis-conduct by misleading the public, for which imposed
a cost of Rs.50,000/-, the appellant bank, being a public institution, as an
ordinary litigant has un-necessarily filed this appeal by wasting valuable
public money and by wasting the precious time of this Court, for which, we
are inclined to enhance the costs imposed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed and the appellant bank is directed
to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent towards costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.R.,J] [T.V.T.S.,J]
20.10.2021
ub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.372 of 2018
T.RAJA,J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
ub
W.A.No.372 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.3090 of 2018
20.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
