The Bank is responsible for handing over possession of the property to the auction purchaser in a SARFAESI proceeding.

W.P(MD)NO.20235 OF 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED:03.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

W.P(MD)NO.20235 OF 2021

and

W.M.P(MD)Nos.16909 and 18656 of 2021

K.Abdul Sukkoor

:Petitioner

.vs.

1.The Authorized Officer,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Regional-I,

Madhuram Complex,

No.2, Dr.Ambedkar Road,

Madurai-2.

2.The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Madurai ADB.

: Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the

respondents to hand over the possession of the property in Old Ward

No.34, New Ward No.86, Madurai Town Survey Ward No.4, Kazmiar Street

Third Line, House bearing Door No.76,B comprosing in T.S.No.1134 to

an extent of 484 sqare feet to the Petitioner in the light of the

order made in W.P(MD)No.11669 of 2019, dated 24.08.2021 passed by

this Court.

For Petitioner :M/s.Ajmal Associates

For Respondents :Mr.C.Karthick

1 and 2

O R D E R

*********

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYNARAYANA,J)

This Writ Petition is filed by the auction purchaser in a

SARFAESI proceedings seeking a direction to the respondents/Bank to

hand over the possession of the property, which was the subject-

matter in the Sale Certificate issued by them.

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P(MD)NO.20235 OF 2021

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.Earlier, the Writ Petitioner had filed W.P(MD)No.11660 of

2019 challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate

Tribunal, in which, the the Division Bench of this Court had allowed

the Writ Petition by setting aside the relevant para No.16 of the

order, dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate

Tribunal. The Division Bench had confirmed the sale in favour of

the Writ Petitioner and also specifically mention that the right of

redemption is already extinguished. Though a review was filed

against the said order, the same was dismissed on 26.10.2021.

Whileso, the above Writ Petition is filed on 1.11.2021 seeking

direction to the Bank to delivery the possession of the property.

4.It is not out of place to mention that the District

Collector, Madurai had passed an order by proceedings, dated

25.06.2012, which was passed under Section14 of the SARFAESI Act. In

the order passed by the District Collector, Madurai, there is a

direction specifically given to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai

City to provide adequate Police protection to the Bank officials at

the time of taking possesion of the property in question.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Bank would

contend that after this order, possession was taken by the Bank.

This is also confirmed by the Sale Certificate issued in favour of

the Petitioner, wherein, it has been stated that '' the undersigned

hereby acknowledges the receipt of the sale price of Rs.40,30,000/-

(Rupees fourty lakhs and thirty thousand only) in full and handed

over the delivery and possession of the schedule property''. So,

even in the sale deed, it is mentioned that the delivery of

possession was handed over to the purchaser.

6.So we are unable to understand as to why this Writ Petition

is filed again for handing over delivery of the possession. Even

presuming that delivery is not effected to the Petitioner, it is

always open to the Petitioner to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal to

seek any such relief for delivery of possession of the property. It

is the duty of the Bank which has brought the property to sale to

hand over the possession of the property to the auction purchaser.

When the statute itself has got a mechanism to take physical

possesion of the property and if t