Bank Of Baroda vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 20496 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bank Of Baroda vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 19 November, 2024

Author: Suvir Sehgal

Bench: Suvir Sehgal

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150527




CWP-27995-2024                -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                               CHANDIGARH

(103)
                                                               CWP-27995-2024

                                                   Date of decision:- 19.11.2024


Bank of Baroda                                                ...Petitioner

                              Versus

State of Haryana and others                                   ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present: Mr. C.S.Pasricha, Advocate, with
         Mr. Sushil K. Bhardwaj, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

          Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
                   ...


SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing respondents No.2 and 3, to note down the lien over the properties,

mortgaged in favour of the petitioner-Bank, in the revenue records, in respect

of loans sanctioned to the various borrowers.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of banking

operations, petitioner-Bank has sanctioned loan to the various customers, which

is depicted in the list, Annexure P-1, and by communication dated 27.06.2023,

Annexure P-2, addressed to the District Magistrate, District Jhajjar, requested

him to note the lien over the properties in favour of the petitioner-Bank, in the

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150527

revenue records. Counsel submits that the respondent-authority is not carrying

out its duty and it is insisted on the payment of registration fee, etc., which is in

violation of the position, as settled by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana

and others Versus Navir Singh and another, (2014) 1 SCC 105. Counsel

submits that the application, Annexure P-2, is pending with the respondents for

the last almost one and a half years.

3. Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the respondents.

4. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.10.2024, it was

adjourned on the request of State counsel to enable him to get instructions.

However, he has sought more time.

5. Given the nature of order being passed, this Court does not deem it

necessary to call for a response from the respondents.

6. Noticing that application, Annexure P-2, submitted by the petitioner

is pending, a direction is issued to the District Collector, Jhajjar - respondent

No.2, to decide it within a period of two months, from the date of

communication of this order, keeping in view the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. Writ petition is disposed of.

                                                               (SUVIR SEHGAL)
                                                                   JUDGE
19.11.2024
Pardeep

         Whether Speaking/Reasoned                    Yes
         Whether Reportable                          Yes/No



                                      2 of 2