Civil Writ Petition No. 13034 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 13034 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.10.2009 Jasmail Kaur …Petitioner Versus Bank of India and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Dalbir Singh Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.S.Dhillon, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate for respondent No.4. Ms. Maninder Kaur, Advocate for Mrs. Jatinder Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.5. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present writ petition has been preferred by Jasmail Kaur against Bank of India and Others with a prayer that impugned order (Annexure P19) passed by Recovery Officer whereby he issued corrigendum to the Certificate of Sale No. 452 dated 16.2.2005 be quashed as Recovery Officer has no jurisdiction to issue the corrigendum and not competent to make correction in the decree/order Civil Writ Petition No. 13034 of 2009 2 to secure the interest of the purchaser. It is further submitted that final order passed could be modified by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and not by the Recovery Officer. This, according to the petitioner, amounts to interpolation, tampering, and changing of the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Brief facts which are necessary to be noted are that Bank of India, Focal Point Branch, Ludhiana, had filed a case for recovery of loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the defaulters of the Bank, namely Usha Jain and Others. They instituted the petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. As per the details given by the Bank, Usha Jain, wife of Mohinder Kumar Jain had mortgaged the following property:- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “Land and building and other structures standing thereon situated at Village Threeke, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Hadbast No. 156, land measuring 3-1-0 Pukhta Nos. 550-553-554, Khata No. 410/531 as per Jamabandi for the year 1977-78. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX Along with the petition, Bank had also attached copy of sale deed of the land mortgaged by Usha Jain. The sale deed has been attached as Annexure P4. Annexure P4 specifically states that Usha Jain was owner of 3 Biswa 13 Biswasis falling within Khasra Nos. 550, 553 and 554. Orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal are attached as Annexures P5 and P6. Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in the order, has stated that any failure on the part of defaulter to pay the amount taken on loan, the applicant/Bank shall be Civil Writ Petition No. 13034 of 2009 3 entitled to recover the amount from the sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties. In pursuance of order (Annexure P6) Form No. 11 issued by the Tribunal also states so. The property was sold and auction purchaser, respondent No.5, had purchased the same. Thereafter, Yogesh Jain, Recovery Officer, on 16.2.2005 issued a Certificate of Sale stating therein that Jagdeep Singh son of Darshan Singh, Auction Purchaser, has been declared successful purchaser of 3 Biswas 13 Biswasis equals to 551.25 square yards of land comprising in Khasra No. 550, 553, & 554, Khata No. 410/531. After issuance of the Sale Certificate, respondent No.4 Sh. R.K. Boharia was then posted as Recovery Officer in place of Yogesh Jain. He was approached by the Auction Purchaser for amending the Sale Certificate for making necessary entry in the mutation and in the revenue record. An application to this effect submitted is Annexure P17. On basis of the application, respondent No.4 issued a corrigendum to the Sale Certificate and instead of Khasra No. 550, 553, & 554 , included Khasra No. 107, 108 & 110 falling within Khata No. 410/531. Petitioner claimed that out of these Khasra No. 107, 108 & 110, Khasra No. 107 exclusively vest in the petitioner and the same could not be included in the corrigendum to the Sale Certificate. To say so, petitioner has relied upon Sale Deed (Annexure P10) and has submitted that she had purchased 7 Biswas of land falling in Khasra No. 107. Mr. K.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate, appearing for Bank impleaded as respondents No.1 and 2, has stated that Khasra No. 107, 108 & 110 are also party owned by Usha Jain who had obtained the loan from the Bank, therefore, they could also be included in the corrigendum and Civil Writ Petition No. 13034 of 2009 4 were also mortgaged with the Bank by way of equitable mortgage by Usha Jain. Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4, Recovery Officer, in his short reply, has submitted as under:- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “2. That petitioner has filed the present petition challenging Annexure P-19, which is corrigendum dated 22.9.2006 of certificate of sale dated 16.2.2005 vide which the mortgaged property measuring 3 biswa 13 biswasi situated at village Tharike Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana was sold, which falls in Khasra No. 550, 553 & 554. Thereafter, on the basis of request by the auction purchaser and letter from the bank, public notice in the newspaper and no objection were received from Smt. Usha Jain and any other party including the petitioner and further on the basis of exchange deed, affidavit by auction purchaser and mutation and revenue documents, answering respondent issued the corrigendum after following the due procedure of law. 3. That from the documents filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner is claiming ownership of 7 biswa of land in Khasra No. 107 in Village Tharike, whereas total land of Khasra No. 107 is 1 bigha 16 biswa and Civil Writ Petition No. 13034 of 2009 5 petitioner is owner of 139/720 share in Khasra No. 107, whereas the property sold in auction/corrigendum is 3 biswa 13 biswasis and the same falls in 3 Khasra nos. i.e. 107, 108 & 110. Moreover, from the corrigendum, it is clear that no specific portion has been sold in the auction, it is only land measuring 3 biswa 13 biswasis = 551 sq. yards has been sold in auction”. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX Mrs. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.3, and Debt Recovery Tribunal has stated that Tribunal intend to take action against respondent No.4. This Court need not go into the question of title and possession of various khasra numbers as after hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is prima facie of the view that respondent -Recovery Officer was not vested with the power of issuing corrigendum (Annexure P4). The rightful procedure for any aggrieved person was to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and seek modification of the Sale Certificate issued by the earlier Recovery Officer. This Court is further of the view that High Court cannot determine the questions raised in the present petition. Suffice it to say that the corrigendum issued to the Sale Certificate be not given effect to until specific orders are passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the application (Annexure P17) filed by the Auction Purchaser be placed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal who, after hearing the parties, shall pass the order. So far as the prayer of Mrs. Kahlon is concerned that Tribunal propose to take action against Civil Writ Petition No. 13034 of 2009 6 respondent No.4, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient in-house mechanism to proceed against any erring officer and no sanction of this Court is required. However, till the application (Annexure P17) is decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Corrigendum issued to the Sale Certificate (Annexure P19) be kept in abeyance. With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 30, 2009 “DK”