A bank's misrepresentation of property details in an auction can invalidate the sale, and forfeiture of the deposit is unjustified if the sale is characterized by a lack of fair disclosure.

Judgment :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition assailing the impugned letter/order dated 30.01.2025 issued by the Bank of Baroda, represented through its Chief Manager, Regional Office, Sambalpur.

2. The Petitioner further prays for a direction to the Opposite Party–Bank to refund the auction deposit amounting to Rs. 22,43,000/- (Rupees twenty- two lakh forty-three thousand only) along with interest at the rate applicable to fixed deposits.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Opposite Party–Bank had issued an advertisement dated 22.08.2024 inviting e-auction bids for the sale of immovable assets under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

(ii) The Petitioner participated in the said e-auction held on 20.09.2024 and submitted a bid for Property No. 1, corresponding to Khata No. 171/2566, Plot No. 266, measuring Ac. 0.200 dec., situated at Mouza– Parmanadapur, P.S.–Bhawanipatna, Tahasil–Kalahandi, District–Kalahandi, belonging to M/s Swaraj Automobiles.

(iii) The Petitioner’s bid, being the highest, was accepted, and she was accordingly declared as the successful bidder for the said property.

(iv) Prior to the auction, the Petitioner requested the Opposite Party–Bank to furnish relevant documents of the property, including the map, for verification. Pursuant thereto, a map dated 02.01.2020, prepared by the Revenue Inspector, Medinipur, was supplied to the Petitioner. In the said map, a road was shown as adjoining the property.

(v) On the basis of the documents furnished by the Bank, particularly the aforesaid map showing road access, and relying on the representations and assurances of the Bank authorities regarding delivery of physical possession of the property, the Petitioner deposited the margin money in good faith.

(vi) Acting on such representation, the Petitioner deposited earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only). Upon being declared the highest bidder, he further deposited 25% of the bid amount, as demanded by the Bank, amounting to Rs. 14,23,625/- (Rupees fourteen lakh twenty-three thousand six hundred twenty-five only). Thus, a total of Rs. 16,23,625/- (Rupees sixteen lakh twenty-three thousand six hundred twenty-five only) was paid to the Bank.

(vii) Thereafter, when the Petitioner visited the auctioned property to take physical possession, she discovered to her utter dismay that the land had no access road and was completely enclosed by adjoining plots, obstructing ingress and egress. The purported road shown on the southern side had, in fact, been acquired by the Railways for construction of a rail line and was not open for private use.

(viii) The Petitioner then applied to the Revenue Inspector, Lanjigarh, seeking the map relating to the Rail Link Project adjoining the auctioned land. The map furnished by the Revenue Inspector confirmed that the plots shown as a road on the southern side had already been acquired by the Railways for the said Rail Link Project.

(ix) By this time, the Petitioner had already sought a refund of the entire amount deposited with the Bank towards the purchase. However, by the impugned letter dated 30.01.2025, the Opposite Party–Bank rejected the request for refund, citing that the property was sold on an “As is where is, as is what is, and whatever