- (1.) Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. We had adjourned the matter for the day vide order dated 28th July, 2017 extracted herein below:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Sri Srivastava on behalf of the Bank submits that with effect from 1st of April 2017, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has been amalgamated with the State Bank of India. In view of this, if the petitioner wants any relief against the Bank, he may proceed accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the sale part is concerned, the same is already complete and it is now the Recovery Officer, who has to proceed to deliver possession. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to Section 28 (5) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to contend that the Recovery Officer is now empowered to proceed in the matter. The contention raised in this petition is that in spite of the sale having been confirmed and the appeal filed against the same having been dismissed, delivery of the possession has not been effected by the Recovery Officer. It has been pointed out that under the aforesaid provision, the manner and procedure to be followed in such matters is as per the Third Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Act 1961'). The Third Schedule to the 1961 Act makes a provision that the procedure, as far as may be, shall be the same as provided for in the Second Schedule. Rule 92 of the Second Schedule makes a provision for framing of Rules by the Board. Sub Rule 2(b) and (d) of Rule 92 indicate that Rules can be framed for prescribing the manner in which any property sold under this schedule may be delivered as well as the procedure for dealing with resistance or obstruction offered by any person to a purchaser of immovable property sold under this schedule in obtaining possession of the property. Learned counsel prays that matter may be taken up on Tuesday, i.e., 1.8.2017 to enable him to produce the Rules applicable in this regard. Put up on Tuesday, i.e., 1.8.2017."
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for ensuring the delivery of possession of the premises which has been purchased in an auction by the petitioner and the sale confirmation certificate has also been issued as stated in the petition.
(3.) It is also alleged that the borrower had filed an appeal which has also been dismissed and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 8th March, 2017 has become final and has not been assailed before any other court of competent jurisdiction.;