Petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by

the letter dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure P/16) written by the

Tehsildar, Knadiya, Indore/ respondent No.3 whereby petitioners

and respondents No.4 and 5 were directed to hand over the physical

possession of the ground floor of property situated at EB-250 (Old

No.BB-1), Sector-B, Scheme No.94, Near Bombay Hospital, Indore

(M.P.).

The facts of the case in short are as under:

[2]

Respondents No.4 and 5 took financial assistance of Rs.

35,00,000/- each (two loans) from respondent No.1/Bank. The

petitioners have stood as guarantors by mortgaging the property

situated at EB-250 (Old No.BB-1), Sector-B, Scheme No.94, Near

Bombay Hospital, Indore (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as

''mortgaged property'') as a security against the said two loans. In

the month of January 2018, the aforesaid two loan accounts were

classified as None-Performing Assets (in short 'NPA') by the

- : 3 :-

respondent No.1/Bank followed by the issuance of notice under

Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter

referred to as ' the SARFAESI Act). After receipt of notice under

Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners approached

respondent No.1/Bank showing a willingness to clear the

outstanding dues of respondent No. 4 & 5 by way of the schedule

prepared by the Bank. The respondent No.1/Bank did not agree

with the proposal and decided to proceed under the SARFAESI Act

by filing an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act

before respondent No.2. Vide order dated 20.09.2019, the

respondent No.2 has allowed the application filed by the respondent

No.1/ Bank. In compliance with the aforesaid order, on 28.01.2020,

the physical possession of the mortgaged property was taken by

respondent No.3 and handed over to respondent No.1/Bank.

[3]

According to the petitioner, on 01.02.2020, the possession of

the mortgaged property was restored to the petitioners by

respondent No.1/Bank, after accepting

Rs.10,74,606/- and

10,26,600/- by way of the settlement in such eventuality, the order

passed by District Magistrate has lost its consequence as the loan

accounts stood regularized. It is further submitted by the learned

counsel that the petitioners undertook to clear the remaining

outstanding loan accounts within six months by handing over the

post-dated cheques, meaning thereby all the proceedings/measures

taken under the SARFAESI Act have come to an end.

[4]

According to the petitioners, in the month of March 2020 due

to the Covid-19 Lockdown, the cheques were given to the Bank,

have returned unpaid, the respondent No.1 has initiated the

- : 4 :-

proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

against the petitioners, which is still pending.

[5]

Respondent No.1/ Bank requested to respondent No.3 that

cheques given by the petitioners have been dishonoured, hence, the

order dated 20.09.2019 passed by District Magistrate be executed

again. In turn, respondent No.3, by impugned notice dated

02.03.2021, directed petitioners to hand over the possession of the

remaining part of the mortgaged property.

[6]

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the petitioners have

approached before this Court inter alia on the ground that

respondent No.3 had become functus officio on 28.01.2020, once

the possession was handed over to respondent No.1 in compliance

with the order dated 20.09.2019, hence, impugned notice bad in law

and liable to be quashed.

[7]

Shri Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed

reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of State

Bank of India and Others Vs. S.N. Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC

92 in which the Apex Court has held that once an Authority

exercising quasi judicial power, takes a final decision, it cannot

review its decision unless the relevant statute or rules permit such

review and it becomes functus officio. Hence, once