MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) This batch of writ petitions is directed against the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Raipur granting application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act') filed by respondent No.4 - J.M. Asset Reconstruction Financial Company Pvt. Ltd., being the assignee of the Bank. By the impugned order, the learned District Magistrate has directed for handing over of the possession of the flats in question to respondent No.5 - M/s City Engineers and Builders, which is the auction purchaser in an auction held by respondent No.4.

(3.) Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners have purchased flats by registered sale deeds for valuable consideration paid to respondent No.3 - M/s. R.K. Constructions, but the said respondent No.3 could not repay the outstanding dues of the Bank and as on 31-5-2012, the said loan to the Construction Company was declared NPA for an outstanding amount of 4,01,53,038/-, therefore, proceeding under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act was initiated against respondent No.3 by the Bank and thereafter, the flats have been auctioned in favour of respondent No.5 - M/s City Engineers and Builders on 13- 1-2016 which is ex facie illegal and contravenes the principles of audi alteram partem qua the petitioners, as they are bona fide purchasers of the value without notice to the proceeding and have a right of ownership over the property which they have acquired after due payment of the consideration and hence, they cannot be denied of their proprietary rights which is in violation of the principles contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned District Magistrate failed to act in accordance with law by refusing to adjudicate the objections raised by the petitioners or by not deciding the objections raised by the petitioners and as such, the order impugned is in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India qua the petitioners.