RAMESH KUMAR HANSARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of a flat bearing no. K/2 (hereafter the said flat) on the first floor of a building named "Ananda Nivas" (hereafter the said building) measuring super built up area of 403 sq. ft. at premises no. DE/3, D.B. Nagar, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700 059. According to him, he purchased the said flat for valuable consideration under a Deed of Conveyance dated 16.02.2010 (hereafter the said deed), executed by Sri Nabunkur Roy Chowdhury, Smt. Subha Roy Chowdhury and Smt. Shila Das, the vendors and duly registered in the office of the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Bidhannagar in Book No. 1, C D Volume No. 3, pages 1784 to 1803, being no. 01411 for the year 2010.

(2.) It is claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner had been in possession of the said flat years before the said deed was executed. To establish the same, the petitioner has annexed several documents, viz. the owner of the flat had confirmed by his letter dated 17.06.2004 handing over of possession of two sets of keys to the padlocks attached to the entrance door of the said flat to the petitioner and delivery of peaceful vacant possession thereof to him, obtaining of gas connection from the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited by the petitioner in the said flat in 2004 itself, and payment of maintenance charges in respect of the said flat by the petitioner to the Ananda Nivas Welfare Association (hereafter the Association).

(3.) It is further claimed that the respondents 4 and 5, Axis Bank Limited and its authorized officer respectively, without putting the petitioner on notice have committed wrongful and unconstitutional act by taking physical possession of the said flat by affixing a purported possession notice on the door thereof as well as a poster conveying that the same is under the possession of the respondent no. 4 in exercise of the power conferred by Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Such act, according to the petitioner, has invaded and/or impaired his right to enjoy the said flat and in the process he has suffered immense prejudice, mental agony and avoidable social stigma.