SHARAT CHANDER KHANDELWAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2003-10-3
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 14,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)1st respondent-Bank, Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed the Original Application against (1) M/s. Damask International, (2) Mrs. Kiran Dua and (3) Mr. Surinder Kumar for the recovery of the money due to it. The respondent-Bank alleged that the 3rd defendant-Surinder Kumar had equitably mortgaged 2 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 25/21 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Safipur, Ranhola, and prayed (among others) for an order for the sale of this property.
(2.)In pursuance of the Recovery Certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), the learned Recovery Officer ordered the attachment of mortgaged property by his order dated 30.4.2001. The appellants who are third parties, filed their objections before the learned Recovery Officer urging that they have purchased the land measuring 1015 square yards in Khasra No. 25/21 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Safipur, Ranhola, from Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal as per the Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Receipt, all dated 3.6.1991 as also an Affidavit executed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. The appellants averred that they are in possession as owners thereof, but their property has been wrongly attached. Therefore, the appellants prayed to drop the attachment and other further proceedings against the property, over which they claim right of ownership and possession.
The learned Recovery Officer (attached to the DRT-III Delhi) by his order dated 17.7.2002 dismissed the objections filed by the appellants observing that the appellants had not produced the chain of documents to prove the title, but have produced the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Affidavit executed by Ashok Kumar Aggarwal without even producing the Title Deed in favour of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. The learned Recovery Officer also observed that the same property belonging to Ashok Kumar Aggarwal in Khasra No. 25/21 has already vested in Gram Sabha through a case SDM/RA Case No. 195/RA dated 25.1.1993 under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. He also observed that the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank stated that the mortgaged property has been identified by the Revenue Authorities, and that the affidavit to that effect has been filed by the respondent-Bank.

(3.)AGGRIEVED the appellants filed appeal 11/2002 before the DRT. The learned Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal in limine observing that the Revenue record shows that the property in question, allegedly purchased by the appellants from Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, has already vested in the Gram Sabha under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act in the year 1993 and, therefore, the appellants have no locus standi to file the appeal, since, the appellants are left with no interest in the property after the property vested with the Gram Sabha.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.