IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 4757 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.G.RAVI, 50 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, POOVASSERY HOUSE, P.O.KAIPARAMBU, THRISSUR (PROPRIETOR, P.G.R.DIAMONDS, ANJOOR, MUNDOOR P.O., THRISSUR). BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER-RSMECCC), 2ND FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), THRISSUR-20. R1 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4757/2011-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 02/04/2009 IN W.P.(C). NO.7747/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 29/07/2009 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1106/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/10/2010 IN IA.. NO. 1523/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 03/01/2011 UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE R/R ACT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE HOSPITAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 4757 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act initiated by the 1st respondent for recovery of the loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is that through proceedings under the Act the bank has already taken possession of the secured assets and, therefore, the proceedings now initiated by the Revenue authorities against the other properties of the petitioner are unsustainable. The petitioner seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the R/R proceedings against the petitioner. 2. A statement has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondent bank, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of which, it is stated as follows: “On the basis of the request made by the petitioner for release of the title document of the property having an extent of 1 acre 21 cents as stated above the bank had sanctioned the said request. But, later the petitioner requested for release of the title document of the two other items of property deposited by him which are having an extent of 20.90 Cents and 13.75 cents with house building. He had undertaken to pay of the entire amount within 3 months from September 2009, provided his request for release of the above documents are approved. The title document of the two item of property measuring 20.90 cents and 13.75 cents were released to him on 18.11.2009 in lieu of title document for 1 acre 21 cents sanctioned earlier. But the petitioner had surreptitiously sold the 1 acre 21 cents to the detriment of the Bank though the transfer is not binding on us. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition. It is to be stated at this instance that pursuant to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act possession of all the 3 items of property were w.p.c.4757/11 2 taken by the Authorised Officer of the bank and it is thereafter that the title documents of two items were released to the petitioner on 18.11.2009. Possession of the items was taken on 15.5.2009. Now the emerging position is this. Out of the 3 items of the secured assets two items were released on the assurance of payment of full amount but the amount is not paid. Subsequently the other item is also found to be sold though it is not binding on the bank.” The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has sold 1 acre and 21 cents of the property after getting release of the other items of property. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner who has after enjoying the benevolence of the Bank, tried to defraud them. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge