SHAIK MASTHAN VALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Suryam and Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 to 4, apart from perusing the material available on record.

(2.) For realization of the debt amount from one M/s.V.R.Enterprises, the respondents-bank authorities initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short The Act") and conducted public auction for the subject land, pursuant to the Intended Sale Notice, dtd. 27/8/2010, issued under Rules 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 framed under the Act. The auction for the subject property was conducted on 8/10/2010, in which the petitioner herein emerged as highest bidder and a sale certificate was also issued by the respondents-bank authorities on 11/11/2010 after the payment of the entire bid amount of Rs.5,41,200.00 by the petitioner.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only an extent of 75 square yards is available out of the total extent of 240 square yards on ground and the rest of the extent is covered by a road and the respondents-bank authorities did not disclose the said reality in their auction notice. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents-bank authorities also obtained a valuation certificate from their approved valuer prior to auction of the subject property and, according to the said valuation certificate, the available site is only 75 square yards and the rest of the extent of 165.00 square yards is covered by a road. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said information was not mentioned in the auction Sale Notice issued by the respondents-bank authorities.