VASUDEV SARASWAT Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

(2.) The facts, insofar as necessary for determination of the present controversy, are that the petitioner claims to have purchased an immovable property situated at Ward No. 14, in front of Karni Mata Mandir, Lunkaransar, admeasuring 65 x 33 ft. (2145 sq. ft.), through an unregistered agreement to sell dtd. 28/3/2014 (Annexure-1) executed by Pawan Kumar Bothra and Nemchand Bothra for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000.00, and asserted to be in both symbolic and physical possession thereof. Thereafter, upon certain alleged attempts of dispossession by the aforesaid vendors, the petitioner instituted a civil suit for injunction before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lunkaransar (hereinafter referred as "learned trial court") on 19/9/2018, wherein the learned Trial Court, by an ad-interim order dtd. 3/10/2018, directed the parties to maintain status quo of the land and record till further orders. Subsequently, on 6/2/2023 the respondent no.4-bank issued an e-auction notice (Annexure-4) inviting bids for the sale of residential plot, against which the petitioner, apprehending illegality, sent a legal notice dtd. 15/2/2023 (Annexure-5) mentioning therein not to initiate any legal proceedings as the ad-interim order dtd. 3/10/2018 is in operation. In reply to the aforementioned legal notice dtd. 28/2/2023 (Annexure-6) the respondent no. 4-bank asserted that the property mortgaged by Smt. Radha Devi is distinct from the petitioner's alleged plot. Thereafter the auction proceeding were carried out and valid sale certificate dtd. 13/4/2023 was issued in favour of the auction purchaser. The petitioner, however, contended that the very property claimed by him has been subjected to the auction proceedings and alleged that such action was undertaken in collusion with other respondents and private individuals. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid acts and apprehending interference with his possession, the petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent No. 1 in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from his lawfully purchased property is arbitrary, illegal, and dehors the jurisdiction of the authorities, being in breach of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that no proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act") are pending in respect of the petitioner's land and that the earlier proceedings had already culminated upon the bank taking possession of the mortgaged property belonging to Smt. Radha Devi. Therefore, any further interference by the respondents is unwarranted and amounts to an overreach of the subsisting status quo order passed by the learned trial court. Thus, it was prayed that the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner and from reinitiating proceedings against him under the SARFAESI Act.