P.V.Sathyanathan vs The Recovery Officer on 9 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32224 of 2009(W)


1. P.V.SATHYANATHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :09/12/2009

 O R D E R
                            C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

                       -----------------------------------------
                     W.P(C).No.32224 of 2009
                       -----------------------------------------

                     Dated this the 9th December, 2009



                                   JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser of 9.95 cents of property

where he has put up a house and residing. Subsequently it was realised by the

petitioner that the property in question is part of a land offered as security to the

first respondent Bank, by a firm named M/s.Advowson Associates, in order to

secure loan availed by them. Consequent to default committed in repayment of

the loan, the first respondent had filed O.A.No.331/98 before the Debt Recovery

Tribunal and a recovery certificate was issued as early as on 5.5.2004. Now the

first respondent has initiated proceedings for auction sale of the property in

question.

2. According to the petitioner, total extent of the land which was offered as

security to the Bank was 30 cents. Out of which the bank has already released

11 cents of land to one Sri.Mulloli Rajan, who had preferred a claim. Therefore,

the petitioner had approached the Bank seeking release of the 9.95 cents

purchased by the petitioner, along with the residential building contained

therein. The said request was declined by the second respondent as evidenced

by Ext.P9. Hence this writ petition is filed.

2

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second

respondent submitted that, out of the extent of 30 cents mortgaged to

the bank it is realised that 11 cents was already purchased by the

above said Sri.Mulloli Rajan even prior to the date of mortgage. The

first respondent Recovery Officer has ordered release of the said

extent of land on the basis of claim petition filed by that person. It is

submitted that the balance extent of property is under mortgage and

the request of the petitioner for a division of the property and release

of a part thereof, cannot be acceded to.

4. It is noticed that the matter is pending consideration before

the first respondent Recovery Officer, who is executing the recovery

certificate. If the petitioner has got any claim that he is entitled to get

release of any portion of the land or any building situated therein, he

can approach the first respondent through appropriate claim

petitions. The petitioner can also seek remedy before the first

respondent to have the auction sale of the property conducted in

distinct plots by segregating the portion belonging to the petitioner,

so that the petitioner can also participate in the auction sale and bid

in auction the property upon which he claims to have got ownership

and possession. However, it is for the first respondent to decide

feasibility of such course of action.

3

5. Under the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed

of reserving liberty of the petitioner to approach the first respondent

with appropriate petitions as observed above. Needless to say that

the first respondent shall consider such requests and take appropriate

decisions thereof.

C.K.Abdul Rehim, Judge
cms