PAODHARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no.15 dtd. 7/1/2022 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella- respondent no.2 in SARFAESI Case no.35 of 2021-22, whereby physical possession of the land appertaining to plot no.96, new Khata no.271, old Khata no.50, portion of new plot no.1254 corresponding to old plot no.267 of village Bhatia, P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikella-Kharsawan has been taken irrespective of the fact that the said land over which a house has been constructed is the only residence of the petitioner (mother of the borrower- Manoj Kumar Sharma and widow of Late Ramdip Sharma- guarantor of the loan).

(2.) Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5, submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has the efficacious/statutory/alternative remedy under Sec. 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SARFAESI Act, 2002').

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the contents of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dtd. 7/1/2022 passed by the respondent no.2, who, on request made by the secured creditor, has ordered to take physical possession of the said property by invoking power under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which is in consequence of the symbolic possession of the property taken by the Bank under Sec. 13(4) of the said Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Unhited Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors., reported in (2010)8 SCC 110, has held as under: