V M HARIZ Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking police protection to take possession of a property which he had purchased in an auction conducted by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for brevity "SARFAESI Act"]. The Bank has not been impleaded in this writ petition, however, it is submitted that Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 the tax receipt, encumbrance certificate and the possession certificate establishes the petitioner's ownership and possession of the said property. The petitioner had also made improvements in the said property by way of completing the construction of a building which was existing in the said property. The petitioner relies on the compromise entered into and the directions contained in the judgment dated 16.08.2016 in the writ petition, to claim re-possession of the property, since the terms of compromise has not been complied with by the 5th respondent.

(2.) The 5th respondent is the original owner of the property, who is said to have transferred the same to one Hariz, S/o.Ibrahim by way of a conveyance; who is not again made a party in the writ petition. The said Hariz mortgaged the property and obtained a loan from the Bank. The Bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings, in which the property was sold to the petitioner. The 5th respondent though not represented by Counsel, at the time of hearing has filed a detailed counter affidavit. He is now claiming rights over the property alleging that he was cheated insofar as the property having been conveyed by reason only of a deceit employed by the purchaser. The transaction was only one of a loan and the money passed on to the original owner was a paltry sum, with a promise to re-convey the property on return of the amounts advanced with usurious interest. The property was also mortgaged by the purchaser without the knowledge of the 5th respondent. A criminal complaint is also said to have been filed against that person by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent asserts to be in possession of the property and denies the contention of the petitioner that he has made improvements in the property. There is also a suit filed by the 5th respondent seeking an injunction against forceful eviction. The maintainability of the writ petition is also seriously contested on the ground of the relief for eviction and re-possession being possible only by way of a civil suit.

(3.) The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State points out that there were altogether 17 crimes registered in and around the very same locality, wherein certain middlemen, with the active connivance of the Bank officials, had mortgaged properties belonging to members of the Scheduled Castes after obtaining conveyance of their properties by deceitful means. It is submitted that the middlemen and the Bank officials have been made accused in the said crimes. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheets have been filed. In such circumstances, there cannot be any police protection ordered in the present case, is the submission. The Senior Government Pleader however fairly submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the Crimes and he could be a bonafide purchaser in an auction.