Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. Manoj Dubey, and Mr. Rayees Ahmad Khan, learned counsels for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad to vacate the area of land measuring 2938 Sqft. bearing Plot No. 205. The aforesaid land was auctioned out of the Recovery Suit preferred by Bank of Baroda. Despite confirmation of sale, the possession of the land was not given to the auction purchaser. The impugned order was passed to allow the possession of the land to the auction purchaser.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive Magistrate has no authority to pass the impugned order to handover the possession to the auction purchaser. It is more so when, there are number of owners of Khasra No. 205 and petitioner is one of them. The land aforesaid has not been divided between different owners. In view of the above, and without partition of the land, the order passed by the Executive Magistrate deserves to be quashed.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that an area of land measuring 2938 Sqft. was mortgaged at the time of taking loan from the Bank. On non payment of loan, the proceedings was initiated by the Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It was contested by the petitioner as well as others.
After the decree, the mortgaged land was put for auction. One Rajeev Kumar had participated in the auction and remained successful. After the confirmation of sale he deposited the amount but was not given possession.
Learned Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order to handover the possession of the land to the auction purchaser. The challenge to the order has been made alleging that the Khasra/ Gata No. 205 is not divided between the title holders. The challenge to the order is made in reference to the land belonging to the petitioner. A specific pleadings to this effect has been made in the writ petition, but we find that in the sale deed annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, the description of land belonging to the petitioner has been given. It is with a dimension apart from the area and the surrounding. The deed of mortgage also give description of the land belonging to the other title holders, which was put for auction. Thus the complete description of the land with surroundings has been given therein for different title holders and accordingly they were in possession of the land.
In view of the above, the title holders of Gata No. 205 were occupying the land of their portion and to the extent of share.
In view of the above, it is incorrect to say that land of Gata No. 205 was not divided amongst the different title holders. We find that it was purchased from time to time for their own share.
It is also a fact that petitioner had earlier approached the Civil Court to seek injunction but remain unsuccessful as no inunction order exists in his favour till date. Now, he has challenged the order passed by the Executive Magistrate on the ground of incompetence, though petitioner has no locus for the aforesaid. The impugned order does not make reference to the land belonging the petitioner, rather it is the land which was put for auction. The description of the land has been given in the mortgage deed and obviously possession pursuant to the impugned order would be of the land described therein and not of any one else.
Accordingly, we do not find that petitioner has any locus to challenge the authority of the Executive Magistrate to pass the impugned order and otherwise we find that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He has mislead the Court by stating that land was not demarcated as per the share of different title holders, whereas the sale deed in favour of the petitioner apart from the mortgage deed give description of the share and also the details of surrounding land, thus, each share holder was occupying the portion of the land purchased by them.
Accordingly, we find no ground for interference in the impugned order.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 A.K. Singh