SAMIR PARIDA Vs. AO-CUM-OHDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was auction purchaser in a sale conducted under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SERFAESI Act, 2002). The first annexure in the petition is sale certificate dtd. 12/7/2010, whereby Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. sold the flat to his client. His client sought execution of sale document but was made to run from pillar to post. Writ petition was filed (W.P.(C) No.17449 of 2016 petitioners own case) by his client and dealt with by order dtd. 18/11/2016, directing the Corporation to look into the request made by petitioner under letter dtd. 3/8/2016. By impugned office order dtd. 5/1/2017 the Corporation has stated that a dispute stands created by Orissa State Housing Board against the Corporation, which has resulted in the sale deed not being executed.

(2.) He submits further, sale certificate dtd. 12/7/2010 stands issued to his client in respect of one Flat no.A-501 (5th Floor, in Toshali Apartment, Block no.IV (Rupa), Satya Nagar, Mouza-Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar. He refers to rule 9 in Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to submit, opposite party no.1 being the Authorized Officer should be compelled to formally convey the property by executing sale deed. He hands up circular dtd. 24/10/2016 issued by Revenue and Disaster Management Department to, inter alia, Inspector General of Registration, where from paragraph-3 is reproduced below:

(3.) Mr. Parida, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1. He submits, opposite party no.2 is the secured creditor and by reason of their claim remaining outstanding, they have raised dispute, informed to petitioner by impugned office order. Following from impugned office order is reproduced below: