IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20185 of 2011 Sudha Nirmal, wife of Sri Ram Nath Prasad Sah @ Ram Nath Nirmal, resident of village Pipra, P.O-Dumri, P.S. Sadar, District Begusarai…………………………………...Petitioner. Versus 1. The Allahabad Bank, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Allahabad Bank, Head Officer, Kolkata-700007. 3. The Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office Deodoot Complex, First Floor, 15, Radha Rani Sinha Road, Bhagalpur. 4. The Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal office, Devdoot Complex, First Floor, 15 Radha Rani Sinha Road, Bhagalpur. 5. The Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Katchari Road, Begusarai………………………………..Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, Advocate. For the respondents : Dr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 02/ 18.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-Allahabad Bank and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For setting aside notification dated 20.10.2011 published in the daily news paper “The Times of India” as contained in Annexure-6 of this petition, whereby and whereunder open letters of intent to participate in bid are invited from public for auction sale of immovable property mortgaged to the Bank in exercise of power conferred under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for recovery of dues of the Bank from the petitioner as mentioned in column no.3 as per terms given therein. (ii) For issuing direction to the respondent Bank to accept the payment of arrears of instalment as has been paid by the petitioner after the compromise between the parties as the petitioner has every intention to repay her loan taken from the bank within time frame as framed by the Hon‟ble Court. - 2 - (iii) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is legally entitled to. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the house in question is situated over 01 katha 3½ dhurs of land out of which 3½ dhurs of land had been purchased by son of the petitioner from his vendor after 2005 and hence he claims that the said land of son of the petitioner cannot be legally included in the sale notice. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had taken housing loan from the respondent-Bank but due to non-payment of installment the secured assets were declared Non-Performing Assets and proceeding under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟ for the sake of brevity) was initiated in which notices under sections 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act were issued in the year 2008-09, but no objection/appeal having been filed by the petitioner, sale notice was published in the newspaper on 18.06.2009. 5. It further transpires that on 30.06.2009 (Annexure-1) the petitioner filed a representation before the authority concerned offering settlement on various terms. The said offer of settlement was accepted by the respondents vide letter dated 07.12.2009 (Annexure-4). From the receipts (Annexure-3 series) it transpires that some amounts were deposited by the petitioner before 2009 and some were deposited after 2009 also but the said deposits were neither as per the settled terms nor were even fraction of the total amount. In the said circumstances the authorities were quite justified in annulling the said - 3 - settlement vide letter dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure-5). 6. In view of annulling of the said settlement which was never challenged by the petitioner either before the authority concerned or before this court and also in view of the petitioner‟s not challenging the demand notice and possession notice which was issued as far back as in the year 2008, the authorities had no remedy left but to issue afresh auction notice on 20.10.2011 vide publication in the widely circulated newspaper, which is shown to have been done. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)