ORDER

02-06-2020 Heard Mr. J. C. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner herein is a businessman and owner of immovable property measuring

04 Katha - 0.375 Lecha under Dag No. 3420 covered by Patta No. 407 at Revenue Village Seuni Ali, Ward No.19, Mouza - Jorhat Town Mouza No.2, District - Jorhat, Assam, bounded by – North: land of Ashok Agarwala and Manoj Agarwala, South: A.T. Road and land of the petitioner, East: land of Bidyut Das and others and West: land of Jogmaya Hazarika and sons (hereinafter referred to as said land).

The petitioner decided to develop his said land and after obtaining necessary permission, he started construction of a multi storied RCC building, having 45 individual residential units/flats with financial assistance of the State Bank of India. It is contended that as the respondent Assam Gramin Vikash Bank offered more loans and also offered to take over the loans of SBI, therefore, the petitioner agreed with the terms of the respondent Bank. Initially, an amount of Rs. 235.74 lakhs was sanctioned by the respondent Bank to the petitioner as term loan and later it was enhanced to Rs. 435.74 lakhs.

It is submitted by the petitioner that because of certain unforeseen circumstances, such as demolition for reconstruction of a bridge on the road having access to his said project on his land and owing to downward trend in the Real Estate market, etc. his said project got delayed.

It is stated that the petitioner anticipating problems in timely repayment of loans though he requested the respondent Bank to rephrase or rehabilitate his loan account, but the respondent Bank delayed the matter in deciding the same.

On 31.03.2016 as well as in May, 2016 the respondent Bank issued Notice under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (13) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, in short) to the petitioner, against which he submitted representations and out of those representations, the respondent Bank rejected two of his representations.

It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent Bank while rejecting his representations did not disclose any grounds and that his other representations are pending for disposal.

It is also contended by the petitioner that the respondent Bank continued its discussion with the petitioner to settle the dues payable by him and he continued to make regular deposits with the said Bank and that the respondent Bank did not take any further action against him under the SARFAESI Act.

Petitioner stated that the respondent Bank on 13.11.2018 issued a Notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. But on 19.11.2018 the said Bank had withdrawn the same. However, the respondent Bank again on 21.11.2018 issued a fresh Notice of Possession with regard to his said land along with the RCC building constructed over it, for the balance outstanding amount of Rs. 5,28,45,661/- payable to the respondent Bank as on 19.11.2018. The respondent Bank also published copy of such Notice under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 against the petitioner in the newspaper.

Being aggrieved with the said action of the respondent Bank with regard to the said Notice under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act read with Rule 8 of said 2002 Rules, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition contending that the Authorized Officer though showed to have taken over symbolic possession of the property of the petitioner involved in the case, but the Security Interest being not registered with the Central Registry in terms of Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 the impugned action of the respondent Bank in issuing said Notice under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act read with Rule 8 of said 2002 Rules, with regard to his said land and building over it is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner therefore, prayed tha