Recovery Officers must adhere to jurisdictional limits and cannot impose binding interim orders affecting property rights without proper evidentiary basis and due process.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Sarkar, J.) :

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated September 1, 2023 passed by the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Kolkata in TRC No.191 of 2001. The order was passed on an application filed by the auction purchaser/opposite party No.1 alleging obstruction posed by the petitioners, making plot no. 3332 (purchased plot) inaccessible.

2. By the order impugned, the learned Recovery Officer passed certain interim directions, which are under challenge before this Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked on the ground that the order suffers from a lack of inherent jurisdiction. It is alleged that the learned Recovery Officer did not act within the bounds of his authority and also misconstrued the law while passing the mandatory directions at the interim stage.

3. The facts as pleaded in this revisional application were that the petitioner No.1 was the sole and absolute owner of lands measuring about 104.66 satak comprising of R.S. Dag Nos.3325, 3329 and 3334 recorded in R.S. Khatian Nos.832, 697 and 448, in Mouza Jagaddal, J.L. No.71 Ward No.25, Municipal Holding No.408, Dwarir Road, under Rajpur-Sonapur Municipality, Kolkata 700151.

4. The petitioner No.1 acquired right, title and interest in respect of the premises by virtue of seven deeds of conveyance executed between January 8, 2016 and November 28, 2017. The petitioner No.1 entered into a joint development agreement dated August 19, 2022 with the petitioner No.2. On or about December 23, 2022, the petitioner No.1 received a notice dated December 15, 2022, issued by the learned Recovery Officer, requiring personal appearance of the petitioner through its representative or a partner. In the said notice, it was alleged that the petitioner No.1 had obstructed the ingress and egress to and from the property sold to the opposite party No.1 in the auction sale, being land measuring about 22 decimals in R.S. Dag No.3332 of Mouza Jagaddal.

5. Challenging the aforementioned notice, a writ petition was filed before the High Court, being WPA 4260 of 2023. The said writ petition is still pending.

6. By order dated February 20, 2023, notice of the proceeding was issued upon the petitioner No.2. By order dated March 1, 2023, the learned Recovery Officer issued a notice upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sonarpur, as also upon the directors of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2, asking them to be present before the authority. According to the petitioners, till such time, no copy of the application on the basis of which the orders were being passed, had been served. On March 14, 2023, two separate applications were filed before the learned Recovery Officer by the petitioners, praying for service of the copy of the application which had given rise to the proceedings. By order dated March 21, 2023, for the first time, the learned Recovery Officer directed the opposite party No.1 to serve a copy of the application upon the petitioners.

7. In course of hearing of the application on April 11, 2023, the petitioners were served with a copy of the application filed by the opposite party No.1. The application c