ABDUL MAJID SIDDIQI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shailendra Kumar for the respondent-bank.

(2.) The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of a communication dtd. 27/10/2023 by the respondent-bank addressed to the petitioner turning down his request for refund of money deposited by him as sale consideration for the auctioned property on the ground that an order of status quo passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is in operation and, therefore, it was not possible for the bank to handover physical possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioner.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had purchased a property mortgaged by respondent no.4 (borrower) in favour of respondent no.3 (secured creditor), in pursuance of an auction advertisement issued on 30/4/2019. The petitioner deposited the sale amount of Rs.82.90 lac on 15/6/2019. He was issued a sale certificate on 9/7/2019. There was some typographical error in the sale certificate and, therefore, an amended sale certificate was issued on 3/1/2020. On 12/11/2020, an order was passed by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj under Sec. 14 of the Act for delivery of actual physical possession of the mortgaged property to the secured creditor. However, it seems that the said order could not be enforced and, therefore, physical possession of the mortgaged property was not delivered to the secured creditor. Thus, secured creditor was also not in position to deliver possession of the property to the petitioner.