.

Mr. Avneesh Jhingal, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by Punjab National Bank, seeking quashing of order dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure P-16) passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh (for short ‘DRT’) and order dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure P-23) passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short ‘DRAT’). Further, prayer is to issue direction to the Recovery Officer, DRT, Chandigarh (respondent No.10) for taking legal measures to deliver possession of the property auctioned in the process of recovery of amount due vide Recovery Certificate No. 230 of 2008.

2. In this writ petition, respondents No. 1 to 5 are auction purchasers; respondents No. 6 to 9 are the borrowers/judgment-debtors and respondent No.10 is Recovery Officer, DRT, Chandigarh.

3. Respondents No. 6 to 9 availed cash credit facility from the petitioner and in order to secure loan, the property bearing Khewat Khatauni No.155/486, Khasra No.618(0-15) min, 619 (2-0) min, kitch 2, Land Area 2 Bigha 15 Biswa or 2750 sq. yards, land of Seona, Patiala, was mortgaged. The borrowers/Judgment-debtors defaulted in repayment of the loan amount and the Bank filed Original Application No. 15 of 2006 (O.A.) for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,14,544/-. The DRT allowed the O.A. vide order dated 11.07.2008 and consequence thereof Recovery Certificate was issued on 28.08.2008. The Recovery Officer vide order dated 08.01.2010 took on record copy of the newspaper cutting indicating the publication of notice and further directed the Bank to file photocopy of original newspaper and to file proposal of recovery. The Bank submitted the valuation report and on filing of the affidavit by the Bank regarding proclamation of sale, the Local Commissioner was appointed for identification and demarcation of the property. The Local Commissioner submitted its report stating that the mortgaged property has been sold by the Judgment-debtors, after mortgaging the same with the Bank. The said property has, further, been sold by the buyers by converting it into flats. In the report dated 12.04.2010, the sales made by the judgment-debtors/borrowers as well as by the purchasers were mentioned. The mutations so entered as a result of sale transactions were also mentioned. The entire chain of sellers and purchasers was also given in a tabulated form.

4. Inspite of the report, the property was put to auction on 04.05.2011 ‘’as is where is, basis.’ Respondents No. 1 to 5 were successful bidders and the property was sold to them for Rs.44,40,000/-. The sale was confirmed vide order dated 12.07.2011 and on deposit of entire amount, sale certificate dated 14.07.2011 was issued. The Recovery Officer vide order dated 22.07.2011 appointed a Local Commissioner for delivery of possession of the property to respondents No. 1 to 5. Letter dated 23.01.2012 was addressed to the General Manager of the petitioner-Bank for getting the mutation of the auctioned property sanctioned in favour of the auction-purchasers. Being aggrieved of the action of the Recovery Officer for handing over the possession of the property to the auction purchasers or for getting the mutation sanctioned in favour of the auction purchasers, the bank filed an appeal before DRT. The DRT vide order dated 01.08.2013 allowed the appeal of the Bank. It was held that the auction purchasers cannot ask for refund of the money paid in pursuant to the auction. Being aggrieved of the order of DRT, the auction-purchasers preferred an appeal before DRAT.

5. The DRAT vide order dated 21.10.2014 allowed the appeal and directed the Bank to ensure handing over of the physical possession of the property and get the mutations entered in the revenue record in the name of the auction-purchasers. In the alternative, the Bank was directed to refund the amount to respondents No. 1 to 5 with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date it is paid back.

6. Feeling aggrieved of the order of DRAT, the Bank fi