In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the

validity of the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the

Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, by which order dated

18.11.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal has

been set aside and the appeal preferred by respondent

No.2

under

Securitization

and

Reconstruction

of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

4

Act, 2002 has been allowed. In order to appreciate the

petitioner's challenge to the impugned order, few facts

need mention, which are stated infra.

2.

The petitioner was the owner of property

bearing Khatha No.200/195 HL No.195/502, vacant site

measuring 150 x 170 feet situate at Kariyepalli Village

situate at Murugamala Road, Chintamani District,

Chikkaballapur. The aforesaid property was purchased

by petitioner No.1 and her husband on 05.11.1997. The

respondent No.3 sought financial assistance to the tune

of Rs.27 Lakhs for constructing a building and to

purchase utensils for M/s Parameshwara Convention Hall

from Karnataka State Finance Corporation (hereinafter

referred

to

as

'the

Corporation'

for

short)

on

13.02.2002. The Corporation classified the aforesaid

loan account as Non Performing Asset in the year 2009.

Thereafter,

the

Corporation

issued

a

notice

on

21.05.2010 under Section 13(2) of Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

5

Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act' for short). The petitioner's were served with a

notice under Section 13(4) of the Act on 06.08.2010.

The officer of the Corporation who is said to be an

approved valuer of the Corporation valued the property

in question at Rs.35.60 Lakhs. A sale notice for sale of

the property in question was issued on 09.10.2010. The

aforesaid sale notice was published in daily newspapers

'The Hindu' and 'Vijaya Karnataka' on 09.11.2020.

Thereafter a communication dated 10.11.2010 was sent

by the Corporation to the husband of petitioner No.1 by

which he was informed that e-auction of the property in

question is scheduled to be held on 15.11.2010. The e-

auction was held on 15.11.2010 and the Corporation

confirmed the sale of the schedule property on

20.11.2010. The Corporation thereafter issued a sale

certificate in favour of respondent No.2 on 21.12.2010,

which was registered before sub-Registrar, Chintamani.

6

3.

The petitioners assailed the aforesaid auction

in a writ petition viz., W.P.No.2811-12/2011. A bench of

this court by an order dated 27.01.2011 relegated the

petitioners to avail of the alternative remedy under the

Act. Thereafter, a sale deed was executed by respondent

No.2

in

favour

of

one

Sm.J.S.Arathi,

and

one

Sri.Srinivasa on 15.05.2013. The petitioners filed an

appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt

Recovery Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by

the Debt Recovery Tribunal inter alia on the ground as

mandated under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Rules' for short), the valuation of the property has

not been made by an approved valuer as defined under

the Rules and the sale has taken place before expiry of

30 days, which is in violation of the mandatory

requirement contained under Rule 9(1) of the Rules.

The respondent assailed the order passed by the Debt

7

Recovery Tribunal in an appeal before the Debt

Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

4.

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by an

order dated 15.05.2019 allowed the appeal inter alia on

the ground that on technicalities no party can be made

to be benefit or suffer, be it borrower/defaulter or the

auction purchaser. It was further held that the auction

purchaser is a bonafide purchaser for a valuable

consideration. Accordingly, the order passed by the Debt

Recovery Tribunal was set aside. In the aforesaid

factual background, this writ petition has been filed.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal

suffers from error apparent on the fa