IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J
Sardar Jasbir Singh - Appellant
Vs.
Uco Bank, Through Its Branch Manager, Main Road Branch, Ranchi - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 2138 of 2019 With W.P.(C) No. 1789 of 2019
Decided On : 06-01-2025
(A) Debts Recovery Tribunal Act - The order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was challenged on the grounds of illegal mutation of property in favor of auction purchasers. (Para 1)
(B) Academic Nature of Issues - The court found that the issues raised had become academic due to a subsequent judgment that set aside previous decrees. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitions were filed to quash an order rejecting an appeal against auction purchase, citing a later judgment that nullified prior decrees.
Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the writ petitions, noting the academic nature of the issues.
Issues: The main issue was whether the possession of the land by the auction purchaser was lawful after the subsequent judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that as the issues had become academic due to the new judgment, there was no need for further proceedings.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
The present writ petitions have been filed for quashing the order dated 29.03.2019 [Annexure-7 to W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019] passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal (T) No. 113/2013 whereby the appeal preferred by Sunil Kumar Tiwary [the respondent No.2 of W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019] against the entire process of auction purchase has been rejected on the ground that the mutation of the property in question has been illegally done in favour of the auction purchasers.
2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019, submits that a supplementary affidavit dated 05.07.2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in the said case bringing on record a copy of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013 whereby ex-parte preliminary decree dated 06.06.2000 and final decree dated 12.01.2004 with all consequential benefits have been set aside. A copy of the said judgment has been annexed as Annexure-S/1 to the said supplementary affidavit. It is thus submitted that further cause of action pursuant to passing of the aforesaid ex-parte preliminary and final decree no more survives.
3. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 of W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019, though does not dispute the existence of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013, however, submits that the respondent No.7 was not a party in the said case. Moreover, at present the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land in question pursuant to the auction sale.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners of both the cases jointly submit that if at all the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land in question, the said possession is unlawful, particularly, in view of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013.
5. Be that as it may. Since after passing of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 in M.A. No. 14/2013, the issue raised in the present writ petitions has become academic in nature, there is no need to further proceed in the present matters.
6. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
7. The petitioners are however at liberty to take appropriate recourse as provided under law for redressal of their respective subsisting grievances, if any.
8. Consequently, I.A. No. 5673/2019 [In W.P.(C) No. 1789/2019] also stands disposed of.
The court determined that issues in the writ petitions had become academic following a subsequent judgment that nullified earlier decrees.
A bona fide purchaser at auction is protected, and a writ petition challenging the confirmation of sale is not maintainable if filed beyond the statutory period.
A third party cannot challenge a mortgage created prior to their purchase of property, and the auction proceedings are valid if conducted according to law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding consent terms, the obligations of the parties, and preventing deliberate obstruction of recovery proceedings.
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.
The court affirmed the validity of a mortgage auction, emphasizing banks' rights over secured properties despite challenges from subsequent purchasers and procedural compliance in auction processes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.