ORAL ORDER

In WP No.38111/2016, the petitioner has challenged the auction sale dated 26.08.2009, by which the sale was confirmed by respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.3, by a letter dated 16.10.2009 bearing No.KSFC/U/BO/1101/2009-10.

2 . In WP No.32969/2013, the petitioner being the auction purchaser has sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the property auctioned on 26.08.2009. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to remove the unlawful/unauthorised occupation of the scheduled property by the borrowers and to evict them through the due process of law and to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to place him in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property. He has also sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to compensate him for the loss of time in not taking effective measures to execute the sale deed.

3. The petitioner in WP No.38111/2016 claims to be the owner of an immovable property bearing Nos.72 and 73 in survey No.198/1A, measuring 5 cents each in Varamballi Village, Udupi Taluk. The petitioner had developed the said properties in 4.35 cent and had leased remaining 5.65 cent it out to his wife Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi.M.Bhat for a period of 30 years, in terms of a lease deed which was duly registered. As per the said lease deed, Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi.M.Bhat was permitted to construct a building over the property for the purpose of running a business therein. The lease was for a period of 30 years, after which the leased property along with the building had to revert to the petitioner.

4. (i) The petitioner contended that Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi.M.Bhat constructed a building over the property to run Sri.Durga Printers in the ground floor. Thereafter, she constructed four floors over it. The said Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi.M.Bhat raised term loan, additional term loan, bridge loan and additional bridge loan from the respondent No.1 amounting to a sum of Rs.30,62,000/-. She also executed hypothecation deeds dated 15.11.1991, 17.10.1995 and 17.03.1997, hypothecating the plant and machinery as security for the loan and also executed a mortgage deed dated 06.02.1995, mortgaging her leasehold rights over 5.65 cents of land that was leased to her.

(ii) The petitioner executed deeds of guarantee dated 15.11.1991, 06.02.1995, 17.10.1995, 17.03.1997 and 24.03.1998 and stood guarantee for the repayment of the loan so raised. In addition to the loan raised by Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi.M.Bhat, she had raised further term loan and additional term loan and executed hypothecation deeds dated 18.03.1995 and 28.03.1996 and the petitioner executed corresponding deeds of guarantee on 18.03.1995 and 28.03.1996 guaranteeing the repayment of the further term loan and additional term loan raised.

(iii) The petitioner contended that due to default in repayment of the loan by Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi.M.Bhat, the respondent No.1 seized and took over Sri.Durga Printers. Likewise, in the year 2002, the respondent No.1 locked up the convention hall that was being run in the upper floors of the building under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (henceforth referred to as 'SFC Act' for short). The respondent No.1 held proceedings on 10.07.2002 and took possession of the assets of the firm. It also stated that it would take over possession of 10 cents of the land along with the building constructed thereon for recovery of dues of Rs.98,01,320/-.

(iv) The respondent No.1 then filed two cases against the petitioner and Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi.M.Bhat for recovery of the loan amounts. One was Miscellaneous Case No.45/2003 under Sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and the other was Miscellaneous Case No. 24/2004 under Sections 31 and 32 of the SFC Act against the petitioner and Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi.M.Bhat to recover loans that was sanctioned for the expansion of Sri.Durga Printers.

(v) During the pendency o