Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri S.M.Royakwar, learned counsel representing the Bank of Baroda.
By means of this petition, a prayer has been made for directing respondent nos. 5 and 6 not to conduct any sale or dispose of the property said to be belonging to respondent no.7, namely, House No.L-372B, Sector-B, Priyadarshini Yojna, Sitapur Road, Lucknow.
Learned counsel for respondent-Bank has opposed the prayers made in this petition vehemently and has submitted that in fact the petitioner is a rank trespasser and has not disclosed in the writ petition as to the basis on which he entered into the possession of the said property.
The facts of the case, which can be deduced on the basis of averments made in the writ petition and on the basis of submission made by learned counsel for respective parties, are that the owner of house in question were respondent nos.7 and 8, who procured house loan from the respondent-Bank and accordingly for the said purpose mortgaged the house in question in favour of respondent-Bank on 27.11.2006. The respondent nos.7 and 8 could not repay the loan amount and accordingly on account of default committed by them the loan amount was declared to be Non Performance Asset.
The proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 were initiated and an order was passed under Section 14 of the said Act by the District Magistrate way back on 29.04.2010. The house in question, in realization of defaulted amount, was auctioned under the provision of said Act on 26.04.2012. The petitioner is said to have participated in the said auction proceedings and he was the highest bidder. According to the conditions of auction, the petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the bid amount immediately on the fall of the hammer and rest of 75% of the bid amount was required to be deposited within 15 days thereafter. Though the petitioner deposited initially 25% bid amount within the time, but he could not make deposit of entire 75% of the bid amount within the time stipulated for the said purpose which ultimately resulted in forfeiture of the bid amount deposited by the petitioner vide order dated 02.07.2012.
Since the first attempt to auction the property in realization of the defaulted bid amount could not succeed, the house in question was again put to auction on 27.02.2019 wherein the highest bidder were Saurabh Kumar Nigam and Pooja Srivastava. On deposit of the entire bid amount, sale was confirmed and the sale certificate has also been issued in their favour on 27.09.2019.
All along these proceedings the petitioner in any capacity did not resist the proceedings drawn by respondent-Bank under the Act, however, all of a sudden, he filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 2614 (M/B) of 2020 challenging the order dated 02.07.2012 whereby the bid amount deposited by the petitioner was forfeited. The said writ petition was, however dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2020 by observing therein that auction had been finalized and third party rights have been created. Accordingly, direction as prayed for by the petitioner in the said petition was refused and the writ petition was dismissed.
Now the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition seeking another direction to the respondents not to dispose of the house in question or put the same to sale. He has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition when the notice dated 28.12.2020 was issued to him by the Additional City Magistrate (seventh), Lucknow requiring him to vacate the house by 05.01.2021, otherwise forcibly possession will be taken. The said notice has been issued for ensuring compliance of the order passed as far as back on 29.04.2010 under Section 14 of the Act by the District Magistrate.
Having gone through the averments made in this petition, what we find is that the petitioner without there being any right in his favour in relation to house in question has made a very feeble attempt to retain the possession thereof.
In the entire petition nothing has been indicated as to under what capacity the petitioner is in possession of the house in question, neither is he a lease holder nor a tenant for the reason that no such averment in the entire petition has been made to this effect. It is only that in the first auction held on 26.04.2012 the petitioner was the highest bidder however he could not succeed in procuring the house in question for the reason that he had failed to deposit the bid amount within the stipulated period which ultimately resulted in forfeiture of the bid amount deposited by him.
Challenge made by the petitioner against the order forfeiting the bid amount deposited by him has also failed as the Writ Petition No.2614 (M/B) of 2020 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on 31.01.2021.
Since the notice dated 28.12.2020 has been issued only to ensure compliance of the order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act and it does not appear that the petitioner has got any locus in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2021 Renu/-