AMIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No. 3, the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, on 28-8-2003 and 15-10-2003 in O.A. Ex. No. 131/2000, rejecting the objection and ordering sale of the house.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that on 15-5-2003, the petitioner filed a written objection before respondent No. 3/Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A. Ex. No. 131/2000 (Union Bank of India v. Raipur Luggage Pvt. Ltd.). On 28-8-2003, the objection was rejected without assigning any legal reason. Again on 15-10-2003, respondent No. 3 directed the said House to be sold by public auction for recovery of the said debts. On 10-12-03, an auction notice was published in Hindi daily, i.e., Dainik Bhaskar, Raipur. On 8-1-2004, another notice was published in Nav Bharat, Raipur and the same were resisted and rebutted by the petitioner in Nav Bharat on 10th and 12th January, 2004.

(3.) Shri Kinger, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the house property No. A-1, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur was sold by public auction on 12-1-2004 by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the same has been purchased by respondent No. 4 - Satya Prakash Jhunjhunwala. The said property has been sold for recovery of debts due from M/s. Raipur Luggage Pvt. Ltd. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said sale is illegal as the sale took place illegal and contrary to law. He further submits that on 15-5-2002 the petitioner had filed a written objection before the respondent No. 3/ Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, in the Case No. O.A. Ex. 131/2000 of Union Bank of India v. Raipur Luggage Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted in the written objection that he had stated that the objector had purchased the aforesaid house (immovable property from (i) Shri Mehendi Mohemmad s/o Shri Didar Ali Farista, (ii) Smt. Asaraf Bani w/o Shri Mehendi Mohemmad Farista, (iii) Shri Murad s/o Shri Mehendi Mohammed Farista, and (iv) Shri Malik Mohemmad s/o Shri Mehendi Mohammed Farista (jointly) on 21-12-1993 for Rs. 8,10,500.00 and since then the objector is residing in the said house alongwith his family members peacefully, having the valid title, possession and interest thereof. It is further submitted that on 11-5-2002 the objector found an order of attachment pasted on the wall of his house, containing that the house of the objector is being attached in the aforesaid execution case and the said order prohibits and restrains (i) Shri Mehendi Mohemmad, s/o Shri Didar Ali Farista, (ii) Smt. Asaraf Bano w/o Shri Mehendi Mohemmad Farista, (iii) Shri Murad s/o Shri Mehendi Mohemmad Farista and (iv) Shri Malik s/o Shri Mehendi Mohemmad Farista, from doing any transfer of charging the above mentioned property in any way to any person. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the certificate debtors are not the owner - title holder of the aforesaid property as they have sold the same to the objector for a valuable consideration of Rs. 8,10,500.00 and the delivery of peaceful and vacant possession of the aforesaid house was given to the objector on 21-12-1993. This has been purchased by the objector - Amit Kumar Singh.