C.W.P NO. 2411 OF 2009(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 2411 OF 2009(O & M) DECIDED ON : 17.03.2009 Harsh Lata ...Petitioner versus State Bank of Patiala ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D. K. Singal, Advocate, for the respondent. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to restore the possession of her residential house which is presently in physical possession of the respondent-bank pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The undisputed facts are that on account of non- payment of the housing loan and two-wheeler loan amounting to Rs.6,51,638/- which were taken by the deceased husband of the petitioner (Chaman Lal), the respondent-bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitization Act. After issuing notice under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization Act, the bank took C.W.P NO. 2411 OF 2009(O & M) -2- physical possession of the petitioner's residential house on 11.02.2009. Before that auction to dispose of the said house is also stated to have been held. At the time of taking the possession, an inventory of the house hold items lying therein was admittedly prepared by the bank. After notice of motion, when this matter came up for hearing on 20.02.2009, the following order was passed by this Court : “ Reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. To come up for arguments on 27.02.2009. It is fairly stated by Learned Counsel for the Respondent that they have no objection against removal of the household articles by the petitioner, lying in the house. The petitioner may accordingly approach the respondent-Bank authorities who may permit her to remove the articles subject to, however, preparation of an inventory”. There is now a serious dispute regarding compliance of the above reproduced order. While the petitioner claims to have unsuccessfully approached the bank authorities on 23.02.2009 to permit her to remove the household articles, the respondent- Bank has moved an application to place on record certain documents suggesting that the petitioner along with 2-4 persons threatened the Security Guard (Phool Chand s/o Ram Kirpal) in the intervening night of 22/23-02.2009 and forcibly broke the C.W.P NO. 2411 OF 2009(O & M) -3- locks put up by the bank and entered the house. It also appears that the house has been completely ransacked and the household articles have gone missing. The question is to who has committed the said offence, however, cannot be determined by this Court. The illegal trespassing into the house, breaking open the locks and removal of the household articles are cognizable offences. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana as well as Station House Officer, Police Station, Tabri, Ludhiana are accordingly directed to register a formal FIR forthwith and investigate the matter in accordance with law. It is stated at the bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that if some reasonable time is granted to her, the petitioner is ready and willing to discharge the entire loan liability. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and taking note of the subsequent events brought on record, I am satisfied that the respondent-bank has, prima facie, failed to protect the petitioner's property, taken by it in possession. At the same time, the petitioner in no circumstances can be absolved from her liability to pay the arrears of loan amount. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-bank and the local police, to hand over the physical possession of the subject premises to the petitioner forthwith. However, the petitioner shall not create any third party rights nor shall she alienate or transfer the same in C.W.P NO. 2411 OF 2009(O & M) -4- any manner, unless a bipartite agreement to which the respondent-bank is also a party, is executed. The petitioner shall be entitled to alienate the house only in a manner which will ensure that the entire sale proceeds to the extent of loan liability of the bank, are directly paid to the respondent-bank. The petitioner shall be at liberty to dispose of the subject property in the manner stated above till 30.09.2009. In case the petitioner fails to pay the entire loan amount before 30.09.2009 by alienating the subject house or otherwise, the respondent-bank shall be entitled to take possession of the house and dispose of the same in accordance with law. For that purpose, the respondent-bank need not to initiate fresh proceedings or again take permission of the District Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act. Meanwhile, the respondent-bank shall be at liberty to refund the earnest money deposited by the auction purchaser, in whose favour no right has accrued so far. Disposed of. MARCH 17, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE