Judgment:
Writ Petition No :
2199. / 2013 Smt.
Beena Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 20.02.2013.
Shri S.R.Singh for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State.
Dispute in question pertains to purchase of a house situated in Naya Sheetla Mai Ward, Mohalla Bai Ka Bagicha, constructed on KhaSr.No.423, Nazul Sheet No.124, Plot No.99/5, Area 1035 square feet.
It is stated that the double storied building was purchased by the petitioner alongwith her father from respondent No.3, by registered sale-deed dated 29.4.2005, on payment of a consideration of `3,50,000/-.
However, not it is stated that action is being taken by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur and Cent Bank Home Finance Limited – respondent No.2, for taking over possession of the house and contending that in a fraudulent manner the property has been sold to the petitioner by respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 has committed a criminal offence, this writ petition is filed.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the records, it is seen that the house in question was mortgaged by respondent No.3 with Cent Bank Home Finance Limited and after holding proceedings under section 13 read with section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2002’).order – Annexure P/15 has been passed by the competent authority on 9.11.2012, taking over possession of the property under section 2 Writ Petition No :
2199. / 2013 Smt.
Beena Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 14 read with section 13 of the Act of 2002.
Petitioner is claiming her right to the property by virtue of the sale-deed executed and seeks protection of her possession mainly on the ground that she is a bonafide purchaser and the action held against the property under section 14 and 13 of the Act of 2002 is unsustainable.
It is seen that the dispute in question is a purely civil dispute with regard to purchase of the property and the dispute of the nature warrants inquiry into factual aspects, which cannot be looked into in these proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
That apart, proceedings have already been initiated under the Act of 2002 and if the order passed vide Annexure P/15, challenged in this writ petition, is taken note, it would be seen that it is an order passed under section 14 after following the procedure contemplated under section 13 and against the said order a remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.
That apart, if any right accrues to the petitioner by virtue of the sale-deed executed by respondent No.3, petitioner should protect the possession by filing a civil suit and seek injunction in the matter.
A dispute of the nature, purely civil between the parties, cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to either file a suit and seek injunction or take 3 Writ Petition No :
2199. / 2013 Smt.
Beena Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others recouRs.to the remedy available of filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, of the Act of 2002.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-