V CHINNA SRISAILAM YADAV v. VIJAYA BANK

sA 210 0F²⁰¹⁸ Applicant further submits that the land is covered under^{G O.} Ms.No.111 dated 31.03.1994 as the land comes under^a catchment area where 90% of the land shall be used^for agricultural purpose only which will not be used for any commercial activity and the Securitization Proceedings will not apply to Agricultural Land. He further submits that originally land admeasuring Ac.21.24 gts. in Sy.No.150, 162 and¹⁶³ from Sri Dharani Buchhaiya in the name of Mr. K. Jaya Prakash Ram who is elder brother of the Respondent No.3. Subsequently, the above said extent was distributed in between 2 brothers vide Family Settlement Agreement dated

06.08.1 984.

The applicant further submits that while things stood thus,^on 16.10.2018 various unknown people visited the Application Schedule Property and revealed that they are intended to purchase the property in an auction going to be held on 24.10.2018 and the notice of auction is published in^News Paper "The Hans lndia" on 29.09.2018. After coming to^know by the news paper publication and also the default made by the respondent no.2 to respondent bank, it is found by^the

3

sA 210 0F²⁰¹⁸ applicant that the property proposed for auction is in different survey number i.e., Sy.No 163 whereas the Application Schedule Property is in Sy.No.150. lmmediately^on 17 .10.2018, the applicant through his Advocate got published a Caution Notice in HANS lndia News Paper cautioning^the General Public not to deal with the Application Schedule Property, since there is a boundary dispute. The applicant further submits that without conducting a proper and authenticated survey and fixing of boundaries of the landsⁱⁿ Sy.No.150 and Sy.No.163 of Donthanapally village, it would not be appropriate to proceed further by conducting auction of the property. The applicant further submits that he^{has an} apprehension that the respondent bank may proceed to^take physical possession and conduct the auction of the Application Schedule Property which will lead to great financial loss to^the applicant.

3. Per contra, it is the submission of the 1"t Respondent^Bank that the S.A. filed by the Applicant is not maintainable as^the Applicant admittedly is not aggrieved by the Sale of^the property but he is alleging that in the guise oftaking possession

4

sA 210 0F 2018 of the property proposed for sale, the Respondents are trying to interfere in the possession of the property of the Applicant. It is false to state that the respondent bank is trying to take physical possession of the property of the Applicant to the extent of 0.14 guntas in S.No.150 instead of taking property belonging to the Respondent No.4 in S.No.163/E. It is further submitted that admittedly the auction was^with respect to the property of the Respondent No.4 and as such the Applicant cannot seek relief for stalling the proceeding under Securitization Act, having admitted that his property is distinct from the property sold under the auction.

It is further submitted that the Applicant is challenging on an apprehension that the Respondents may take the physical possession of his alleged land in the guise of Securitization^Act, without any basis or any proof. lt is submitted that the Applicant claiming to be owner of the adjacent property has filed the present S.A. without any proof to show that the answering Respondent has initiated the measures under^the Act to take the physical possession. lt is submitted that as^per

5

sA 210 0F²⁰¹⁸ the pleadings of the Applicant, admittedly the Applicant is no way concerned with the property put to auction by^the answering Respondent and further the S.A. is filed on an apprehension that the property of the Applicant may be taken over, which is baseless. There is no proof to support^the contention of the Applicant that the Property of the Applicant will be taken over by the answering Respondent. It is further submitted by the respondent bank that the relief of the Applicant to set aside the proposed action of the answering Respondent No.1 is itself not maintainable. lnfact the Applicant is not challenging any measure but seeking a restraint order from this Hon'ble Tribunal apprehending an actionⁱⁿ furtherance of the sale proceedings. The Applicant is also not aggrieved by the sale proceeding as^per the relief sought by the Applicant. With these submissions, 1"1 Respondent Bank sought for dismissal of the SA.

q"

6

sA 210 0F 2018

4. Now the point that arise for consideration^is Whether the Applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the action taken by the Respondent Bank against the schedule propefty under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The Applicant has an apprehension that the Respondents may proceed to take the physical possession of^the property contrary to the law without following^the procedure laid down under the^law.

Per Contra, the Respondent No.1 submits that^the Applicant is challenging on an apprehension that^the Respondents may take the physical possession of^his alleged land in the guise of Securitization Act, without^any basis or any proof. lt is submitted that as per the pleadings, the Applicant is no way concerned with^the property put to auction by the answering Respondent' There is no proof to support the contention of^the

7

sA 210 0F²⁰¹⁸ The Applicant is challenging the SARFAESI Measures taken^by the Respondent Bank and filed the present S.A. merely on the apprehension that Respondent No.1 is trying to take physical possession of the property belonging to the applicant' However, no documents filed to support his apprehension' Respondent Bank categorically submitted that they are in no way concerned with the SA Schedule property, which is distinct from the property sold in auction and no cause of action arises on mere apprehension of proposed auction'

6. ln view of the above discussion, I find that the Applicant failed to make any valid grounds to set aside SARFAESI measures'

7. ln the result, SA fails and hereby dismissed'

8. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned' ( Dictated to P.A., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2oth day of April, 2019 )

H0IJJO)

( R, MALLIKARJUNA )

Presiding Officer.

8