ICICI Home Finance Company v. Shivani Singh and Another

Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, belong to a cooperative society. It was acquired by the Lucknow Development Authority for its scheme. A dispute arose and ultimately a settlement/compromise was arrived at between the cooperative society, namely, Mansarovar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., and the Lucknow Development Authority, which was filed in Writ Petition No. 2327 of 1986, preferred by the society, and the said writ petition was disposed of on 26.10.1994 in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Based on the said compromise, the society was at liberty to sell the plots of the land as agreed upon between the parties, as claimed by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Consequently, the plot-in-question bearing plot no.1/124, Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, was sold off by the aforesaid society to the mother of opposite party no.11. The opposite party no. 11 is represented by Sri Shrikishan Prajapati, who has filed his vakalatnama today, which is taken on record. The mother of opposite party no.11 died on 19.06.2009. Thereafter, opposite party no.11, being her legal heir, sold off the aforesaid plot of land by a registered sale deed to the petitioners on 05.08.2024.

6. In the interregnum, on 12.10.2001, as informed by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, the Lucknow Development Authority, in spite of the compromise dated 10.11.1993 and the order of the writ Court dated 26.10.1994, allegedly sold the aforesaid plot bearing plot no.1/124, Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, to opposite party no. 10. The Sub-Registrar/Registrar, in some proceedings, recorded a finding that there is no proof of registry of the said sale deed dated 12.10.2001 in favour of opposite party no.10.

7. The opposite party no.10, in turn, executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party nos.8 and 9. The opposite party no.8 had taken a loan from opposite party nos.5 and 6, as referred earlier, and had mortgaged the aforesaid land with opposite party nos.5 and 6. However, subsequently, on coming to know of the fraudulent transaction made by his vendor, he lodged an F.I.R. alleging an offence of fraud etc. against opposite party no.10 and several other persons.

8. The fact of the matter is that the Bank, opposite party nos.5 and 6, claim the land-in-question to be a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and as the loan was not repaid by opposite party no.8, therefore, measures have been taken by the said Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, one of which is to take physical possession of the land, for which an application has been filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the District Magistrate, Lucknow, which is still pending and no orders have been passed therein.

9. The petitioners, on coming to know of the aforesaid fact, have approached this Court seeking the reliefs as quoted hereinabove.

10. We pointedly asked Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, as to whether the petitioners could approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the event an order is passed in respect of the alleged secured asset, i.e., the property in respect to which the petitioners claim title and possession both, he fairly submitted that it could be so.

11. Moreover, we find that as of now no order has been passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Of course, the petitioners would not have any right to be heard in the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, considering the fact that the proceedings are non-adjudicatory and the law in this regard has been settled by a catena of decisions which need not be reiterated herein.

12. Looking into the entire scenario before us, we are of the opinion that, as of now, there is no cause of interference by this Court. In the event an order is passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise a challenge under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, if otherwise permissible in law or to seek such other remedies as may be prescribed but there is no occasion for this Court to exercise its discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter at this stage.

13. It is made clear that we have not at all entered into nor adjudicated the merits of the claim of the petitioners nor the rival claims, if any, of the opposite parties.

14. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Manish Kumar, J) (Rajan Roy, J) Order Date :- 22.7.2025 A.Dewal ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, belong to a cooperative society. It was acquired by the Lucknow Development Authority for its scheme. A dispute arose and ultimately a settlement/compromise was arrived at between the cooperative society, namely, Mansarovar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., and the Lucknow Development Authority, which was filed in Writ Petition No. 2327 of 1986, preferred by the society, and the said writ petition was disposed of on 26.10.1994 in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Based on the said compromise, the society was at liberty to sell the plots of the land as agreed upon between the parties, as claimed by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Consequently, the plot-in-question bearing plot no.1/124, Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, was sold off by the aforesaid society to the mother of opposite party no.11. The opposite party no. 11 is represented by Sri Shrikishan Prajapati, who has filed his vakalatnama today, which is taken on record. The mother of opposite party no.11 died on 19.06.2009. Thereafter, opposite party no.11, being her legal heir, sold off the aforesaid plot of land by a registered sale deed to the petitioners on 05.08.2024.

6. In the interregnum, on 12.10.2001, as informed by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, the Lucknow Development Authority, in spite of the compromise dated 10.11.1993 and the order of the writ Court dated 26.10.1994, allegedly sold the aforesaid plot bearing plot no.1/124, Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, to opposite party no. 10. The Sub-Registrar/Registrar, in some proceedings, recorded a finding that there is no proof of registry of the said sale deed dated 12.10.2001 in favour of opposite party no.10.

7. The opposite party no.10, in turn, executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party nos.8 and 9. The opposite party no.8 had taken a loan from opposite party nos.5 and 6, as referred earlier, and had mortgaged the aforesaid land with opposite party nos.5 and 6. However, subsequently, on coming to know of the fraudulent transaction made by his vendor, he lodged an F.I.R. alleging an offence of fraud etc. against opposite party no.10 and several other persons.

8. The fact of the matter is that the Bank, opposite party nos.5 and 6, claim the land-in-question to be a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and as the loan was not repaid by opposite party no.8, therefore, measures have been taken by the said Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, one of which is to take physical possession of the land, for which an application has been filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the District Magistrate, Lucknow, which is still pending and no orders have been passed therein.

9. The petitioners, on coming to know of the aforesaid fact, have approached this Court seeking the reliefs as quoted hereinabove.

10. We pointedly asked Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, as to whether the petitioners could approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the event an order is passed in respect of the alleged secured asset, i.e., the property in respect to which the petitioners claim title and possession both, he fairly submitted that it could be so.

11. Moreover, we find that as of now no order has been passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Of course, the petitioners would not have any right to be heard in the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, considering the fact that the proceedings are non-adjudicatory and the law in this regard has been settled by a catena of decisions which need not be reiterated herein.

12. Looking into the entire scenario before us, we are of the opinion that, as of now, there is no cause of interference by this Court. In the event an order is passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise a challenge under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, if otherwise permissible in law or to seek such other remedies as may be prescribed but there is no occasion for this Court to exercise its discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter at this stage.

13. It is made clear that we have not at all entered into nor adjudicated the merits of the claim of the petitioners nor the rival claims, if any, of the opposite parties.

14. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Manish Kumar, J) (Rajan Roy, J) Order Date :- 22.7.2025 A.Dewal ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench