IMPORTANT POINT
The issuance of a sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act vests title in the purchaser, and there is no legal provision for refunding the sale money unless the sale is annulled by a tribunal or court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shailendra Kumar for the respondent-bank.

2. The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of a communication dated 27.10.2023 by the respondent-bank addressed to the petitioner turning down his request for refund of money deposited by him as sale consideration for the auctioned property on the ground that an order of status quo passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is in operation and, therefore, it was not possible for the bank to handover physical possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioner.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had purchased a property mortgaged by respondent no.4 (borrower) in favour of respondent no.3 (secured creditor), in pursuance of an auction advertisement issued on 30 April, 2019. The petitioner deposited the sale amount of Rs.82.90 lac on 15.06.2019. He was issued a sale certificate on 09.07.2019. There was some typographical error in the sale certificate and, therefore, an amended sale certificate was issued on 03.01.2020. On 12.11.2020, an order was passed by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj under Section 14 of the Act for delivery of actual physical possession of the mortgaged property to the secured creditor. However, it seems that the said order could not be enforced and, therefore, physical possession of the mortgaged property was not delivered to the secured creditor. Thus, secured creditor was also not in position to deliver possession of the property to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner filed Writ-C No.30381 of 2021 with the grievance that possession of the property purchased by him in the auction sale had not been delivered to him. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 07.12.2021 noting that in the past, the possession could not be made over to the petitioner in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and a restraint order in respect of eviction proceedings during the said period. The Court noted that the said hindrance was no more there at the time of passing of the order and, therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by observing that the proceedings for handing over possession of the property sold to the petitioner be completed on or before 31 March, 2022 provided that there was no legal impediment.

5. The possession of the mortgaged property was still not delivered to the petitioner. He, therefore, filed Contempt Application (Civil) No.5172 of 2022 before this Court and it was disposed of on 05.09.2022 granting two months further time to comply with the order of writ court. It seems that, thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh representation before the respondent-bank and prayed for refund of the auction money along with interest and damages for mental harassment. The total sum demanded by the petitioner was Rs.1,96,93,367/-, out of which, Rs.82,90,000/-was the sale price deposited by him and the rest was towards interest and damages on account of mental harassment and legal expenses. The bank responded to his representation/ claim by the impugned communication. The bank, in its reply, stated that it had been making best efforts to handover physical possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioner but it was helpless without the help of administration and police force in handing over possession to the petitioner. It was also stated that the eviction notice dated 30.10.2022 issued by the bank and the notice dated 16.11.2022 issued by the City Magistrate were challenged by the borrower before the D.R.T. by filing S.A. No.841 of 2022 and in which the petitioner also appeared through his counsel. The D.R.T. passed an order on 21.11.2022 and rejected the prayer of the borrower for interim relief. Aggrieved thereby, the borrower had approached D.R.A.T. by filing Appeal Diary No.1015 of 2022 and wherein an order of status quo was passed and which was in operation. The bank, therefore,