Parties must resolve factual disputes regarding land ownership through appeal under Section 30(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act rather than writ petitions.

ORDER :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents restraining them from auctioning the land of the petitioner appertaining to Khata No.13, Plot No.603, measuring an area of 20 decimals, Mouza-Chas, District-Bokaro.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph nos.16 & 17 of the supplementary affidavit dated. 11^th February, 2025, which read as under:

“16. That it is stated that the petitioner has also downloaded the details of land of Plot No.603 of Khata No.13. The total area of Plot No.603 is 2.67 acres and out of which 10 decimal land is in the name of Nirmal Devi and 10 decimal land is in the name of Usha Singh. It also appears that Pankaj Tripathi has also purchased 20 decimal land out of 2.67 acres in Plot No.603 that is why entire Raiyat of Plot No.603 clearly indicates the name of Nirmala Devi, Usha Singh and Pankaj Tripathi separately at Sl. No.-44, 45 and 41 respectively as would be evident from the down loaded copy from the official website of the Revenue Department of Jharkhand in relation to the Plot No.603 of Khata No.13.

Photocopy of downloaded web copy of details of land of Plot No.603 of Khata No.13 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- 10 is continuation of main application.

17. That it is stated that Pankaj Tripathi either by misleading the respondent authorities or in connivance with respondent authorities might have shown the land of the petitioner as his land and respondent authorities without verifying the same trying to take possession of the land of the petitioner and to sale/auction the same on the document of Pankaj Tripathi.

3. It is further submitted that Nirmala Devi-wife of the petitioner and Usha Singh-daughter of the petitioner filed applications in R.P. No.100 of 2013 as intervenors pointing out the aforesaid fact before the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, however, the same were rejected by the said Recovery Officer vide order dated 21^st January, 2019. The copy of the said order has been annexed as part of Annexure-11 series to the supplementary affidavit dated11^th February, 2025.

4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the aforesaid plea taken by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit dated 11^th February, 2025 as well as by his wife and daughter in R.P. No.100 of 2013 is factual in nature. Moreover, the petitioner has the remedy of preferring an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi under Section 30 (1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the order dated 21^st January, 2019 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has primarily raised a factual plea with respect to the land in question vis-a-vis the land put by the borrower-Pankaj Tripathi as equitable mortgage before the respondent-Bank and that the said plea has already been rejected by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi vide order dated 21^st January, 2019 passed in R.P. No.100 of 2013, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should have preferred an appeal against the said order taking recourse of Section 30 (1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

6. Hence, if the petitioner prefers an appeal under Section 30 (1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the said order passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi by 27^th February, 2025 along with an application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the same, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi shall consider the said application leniently and shall proceed to dispose of the said appeal in accordance with la