JUDGMENT

Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2019, which is an application for condonation of delay of 08 days in filing the writ appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay in filing of appeal is condoned.

2. Also heard on admission.

3. The Appellant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue, wherein the Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, wherein the order of mutation passed by the Tahsildar was set aside.

4. Declining to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue by the learned Single Judge in writ petition made the appellant to file this appeal.

5. Brief facts in nutshell are that the Appellant obtained loan from Respondent No.4- Bank and against it he mortgage the property subject matter of the appeal. The description of the property is land bearing Kh. No.157/11, Kh. No.153/6 measuring 0.070 and 0.142 hectare situated at Purani Basti Road, Manendragarh, District - Korea.

6. That when the Appellant failed to make re-payment of the loan amount, Respondent No.4-Bank initiated proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 'the SARFAESI Act') and the property mortgaged with Bank were subjected to sale under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act after following the due process of law. The property was sold in favour of Respondent No.3 for a total consideration of Rs. 41 lakhs and the said Bank issued Sale Certificate to this effect.

7. After getting Sale Certificate executed in favour of Respondent No.3, he came into possession of the subject land. He, thereafter, filed an application for mutation of his name in revenue records, which was allowed by the Tahsildar in a Case No.44/A-6/2011-12 on 12.03.2012. The order of Tahsildar was challenged by the Appellant before Sub Divisional Officer (R), who taking into consideration provisions of Section 165(6-a) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the Code of 1959') referred the case to the Court of Additional Collector.

8. The Additional Collector considering the provisions of Section 165(6-a) of the Code of 1959 held that the transfer of subject land is in violation of the provisions of Section 165(6-a) of the Code of 1959 and set aside the order of Tahsildar and further directed to restore the possession of land in question to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the order of Additional Collector, Respondent No.3 preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue which was allowed. Challenging the order of Board of Revenue, a writ petition was filed in the High Court and learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition taking into consideration provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 and UCO Bank and another Vs. Dipak Debbarma and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 585 .

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Bank committed fraud by transferring the entire property even which has not been mortgaged, the provision of Section 165(6-a) of the Code 1959 is mandatory and noncompliance of the same will made the transfer of property void. He submits that the Collector has rightly taken note of the provision of Section 165(6-a) of the Code 1959, but the Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is having overriding effect on provision of Section 165(6-a) of the Code 1959, which is not sustainable and the impugned order is liable to be interdicted.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 supported the impugned order.

11. We have heard learned counsel for parties.

12. Perusal of the writ petition would show that the Appellant has not taken any ground of fraud as argued by learned counsel for the Appellant, but th