MANTOSH DEB Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl.GA appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The facts are mostly admitted. The petitioner being attracted by the notice of auction for sale of some land (immovable property) published by Tripura Gramin Bank had participated in the auction for purchasing the land measuring 0.370 acre comprised in Khatian No.1197 of Mouja-Kanchanpur plots No.1481, 1483 [the records will preval on any circumstances]. The petitioner was successful in the auction which was designed within section 13(4) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, in short). As the predecessor of the said land who converted the same as the secured asset failed to repay the loan, its possession was taken over on exhausting the procedure under section 13 of the said Act. The borrower failed to discharge the obligation before the land was taken in the possession by the authorized officer of Tripura Gramin Bank. The outstanding on the loan account since remained unliquidated, the land was put on auction on the course of time. After the auction was conducted, the petitioner purchased the said land on call of Rs.2,40,00,255/-. Thereafter, the confirmation advice (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was issued in his favour on payment of initial amount of Rs.60,01,000/- on condition to deposit the remainder of the amount within 15 days i.e. by 12.04.2019. Since the petitioner had deposited the said remaining amount in time, the sale certificate in terms of Rule 9(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002 was issued. Sub- Rule 6 of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules) provides as follows:

(3.) The said certificate has been issued in the form prescribed under Appendix V in favour of the petitioner acknowledging the receipt of the sale price of Rs.2,40,00255/- only . In the sale certificate, it has been acknowledged that the secured creditor had delivered the possession of the scheduled property as noted before. It has been also recited in the sale certificate that the sale of the secured property was made free from all encumbrances. When, on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner approached the revenue officer to mutate the land in his favour, it has been stated in the writ petition that the revenue officer, even thought the said sale certificate evidenced outright sale, denied to act on the said certificate under Section 46 of the TLR & LR Act. It has been stated by the petitioner that the said revenue officer demanded the registered sale deed/sale certificate. This fact has been admitted by the respondents in their reply particularly in Para 10 of the reply, where it has been stated that the petitioner submitted an application under Section 46 of the TLR & LR Act for entering his name in column No.6 of the Khatian No. 1197 (the khatian as opened in the name of the former owner) and for deleting the name of Biswajit Ghosh, the former owner. But as he has not submitted any registered sale deed regarding purchase of the land in question, the petition for the said purpose was dishonoured and rejected by the respondents. Thereafter, in the reply, a reference has been made to Section 46 of the TLR & LR Act. A particular reference has been made to sub-section 2 of Section 46 of the TLR & LR Act where it has been provided that any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise any right in land or, where such person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property, shall report his acquisition of such right to the village accountant within three months from the date of such acquisition and the village accountant shall give at once a written acknowledgement in the prescribed form for such report to the person making it.