Hon’ble Alok Mathur, J.—Heard Sri Surya Mani Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. Petitioner by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has sought indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondent No. 2 (Authorised officer/Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, Sultanpur Branch, to refund the entire amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-(Rupees 60 Lacs) with 18% interest and Rs. 15 lakhs (rupees fifteen lakh) as damages.

3. In brief, the conspectus of the controversy emanates from the fact that the petitioner, who is an auction-purchaser of secured assets auctioned by the Allahabad Bank, in proceedings conducted in pursuance to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act”), has deposited the entire bid amount at the auction held on 28.6.2017, yet the possession of the property has not been handed over to him, despite lapse of nearly one and a half year and level best efforts made by him.

4. It has been submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has participated in the e-auction sale in respect of property “land Plot No. 384 M, House No. 12/2, measuring 3060 sq.ft., situated at Village - Payagipur, Pargana - Meeranpur, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Sultanpur” in the name of Vinod Kumar Pandey s/o Shri Ram Murti Pandey, against recovery of sum of Rs. 31,89,156/- with interest expenses thereon due on M/s Farmer Agro Traders through its proprietor Vijay Kumar Pandey. In the auction notice dated 25.5.2-17, the reserve price of the property was fixed as Rs. 60 Lacs. The petitioner with an intention to participate in auction proceedings deposited Rs. 6 lakhs known as Earnest Money Deposit (hereinafter referred to as “EMD”) with the opposite party number 2, through a cheque bearing number 000862 dated 23/06/17 in the name of Authorised Officer, Allahabad Bank, Sultanpur. Thereafter, he participated in the auction proceedings held on 28/06/17 and quoted Rs. 60 Lacs for the aforesaid property, as the bid of the petitioner was highest, the bid was released in his favour. As per terms and condition of the bid, the petitioner deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 9 lakhs on the same day, as required under Rule 9 (3) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2002”) but the sale confirmation letter was not issued in his favour.

5. It has been averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner was directed to pay remaining 75% of the sale amount within a period of 15 days from the date of auction. Accordingly, he deposited 75% of the bid amount i.e Rs. 44,40,000/-and Rs. 60,000/ to the Income Tax officer as per the directions of respondent No. 2. In this manner, the petitioner paid the entire auction price amounting Rs. 60 lakhs well within time to opposite party No. 2 as required under Rule 9 (4) of the Rules 2002.

6. Despite deposit of the entire amount of Rs. 60 lakhs well within time, the respondent No. 2 neither confirmed the sale nor handed over the sale certificate to the petitioner and only false assurances were extended by the respondent No. 2 that the possession of the said schedule property would be handed over to the petitioner very soon.

7. The petitioner brought to the notice of the Bank that he has got information from reliable sources that the property is in possession of other persons, and it is for this reason, the possession of the property could not be taken by the opposite party No. 2 and handed over to the petitioner.

8. The main plank of the petitioner’s argument is that there was defect in the title of the aforesaid property, which was never disclosed by the respondent bank at any stage of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, and even after lapse of more than one and a half year, the possession of the property has not been