R.K. Gauba, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to invoke the civil writ jurisdiction of this court praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ for quashing the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRAT’) and the subsequent communication dated 30.06.2011 issued in its wake by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (respondent No. 3) calling upon her to surrender property No. 1735, New Gita Colony, Mirzapur Road, Hissar, Haryana (here-in-after referred to as ‘the subject property’) within a period of three months beginning 28.04.2011.

2. It is necessary to trace the background facts at some length.

3. The first respondent was the owner of the subject property during the relevant period when on 16.05.2003 he, along with another, approached the third respondent (‘the secured creditor’) for a housing loan. The loan of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned against equitable mortgage created in respect of the subject property. The loan amount was re-payable over a period of 15 years with equated monthly installment (EMI) settled at Rs.4,919/-. It has been the case of the borrower (the first respondent) that only an amount of Rs.2 Lacs was disbursed. The lender invoked the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) by initiating action under Section 13 classifying the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). It is stated that on being served with demand notice, the borrower raised objection under sub-section (3A) of section 13 by way of reply dated 09.09.2005 mainly on the ground that full loan amount had not been disbursed and so the EMIs calculated on the total disbursable amount were not payable and thus the loan amount could not have been classified as NPA.

4. On 13.03.2006, on an application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, the District Magistrate, Hissar passed an order directing Superintendent by Police Hissar to provide police assistance for the possession of the subject property to be taken over. It is claimed that after possession had been taken over, inter alia, in terms of possession notice dated 20.03.2006 published in local newspapers, the subject property was put to public auction for sale by the secured creditor. It is further stated that the property was purchased in the said public auction by Vijay Kumar Takker (respondent No. 4) for consideration of Rs.3,00,001/- in which context a sale certificate was duly issued and registered in his favour.

The petitioner claims that she had purchased the subject property for consideration from the fourth respondent (‘the auction-purchaser’) by sale deed executed and registered on 13.12.2007 and accordingly had taken over the vacant physical possession thereof. She claims that after purchasing the property, being in immediate need, she carried out construction and started using it as residence.

5. On 15.02.2008, a securitization application registered as SA No. 24/2008 was filed by the first respondent (borrower) under Section (17)(1) SARFAESI Act before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (DRT), inter alia, questioning the action taken by the secured creditor leading to public auction/possession notice etc. The borrower pleaded in the said application, inter alia, that the procedure followed in the matter by the secured creditor was not in accord with the requirements of SARFAESI Act or rules framed there-under. Various objections as to validity of the process leading to the sale by public auction for recovery were taken including one that the date of NPA or particulars of the account were not mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2); the possession notice/sale notice was not published in the vernacular language; the representation sent in response to notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act had not been disposed of; the determination of reserve pr