Mandamus was not issued as the demarcation report is under challenge before this Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana

The petitioner-bank (Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd) filed a civil writ petition to issue a writ of Mandamus under article 226 of the constitution of India, which “empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them,” Article 227 of the constitution of India, “determines that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction”,  directing respondent No.9 to provide its balance sheet to the petitioner to enable it to get attached proportionate revenue for the usage of mortgaged land.  

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Jaswant Singh and Honorable Mr Justice Sant Parkash on the 20th of September 2021 in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Versus the state of Haryana and others [Civil Writ Petition- 18670-2021(O&M)] Mr Manish Jain represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.

The case relates to the facts wherein the respondent (-M/s Doon Valley Rice Limited) availed various loan facilities from the state bank of India. The same was secured by mortgaging landed properties. The respondent was held guilty for defaulting in repayment of the loan and was accused of breaching various terms and conditions and hence the account of the respondent was classified as NPA (non-performing asset). The State Bank of India assigned an outstanding loan to vide assignment deed of the respondents to the petitioner-bank (Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd) on the 23rd of March 2006.

Further, the appeals were passed in claims/ counterclaims is yet to be dismissed before the DRAT (Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal), Delhi only the original application so far has been dismissed by the DRT and the local commissioner has been appointed to execute the order for taking physical possession of the mortgaged properties. Now the revenue authorities failed to do the same and therefore the petitioners filed a writ petition before the Court however it was disposed of vide order on the 6th of February 2020 directing Deputy Commissioner, Karnal who appointed Tehsildar as Duty Magistrate for demarcation of the mortgaged land.  In the petition M/s Doon Valley Trust-respondent No.9 filed CWP No.5354 of 2021 before this Court assailing and seeking direction inter alia to stay the operation of the demarcation report dated 19.02.2020 submitted by Tehsildar, Karnal. The said petition is now pending for 24.11.2021.

The counsel representing the petitioner held that respondents no. 9&10 are not strangers to each other and one of them was a trustee of respondent 9 and director of respondent 10. now the respondent no.1 to 8 including the State of Haryana are statutory bodies and have granted permission to run five educational institutions on the premises belonging to respondent no.9. this land is actually a mortgaged land. The permission was granted on a mortgaged land without permission from the petitioner-bank and therefore amounts to a violation of terms and conditions. Therefore, a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.9 to provide its balance sheet to the petitioner to enable it to get attached proportionate revenue for the usage of mortgaged land.

The Honourable Court concluded that “We are of the considered opinion that none of the prayers made in the petition can be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, more so when the demarcation report itself is under challenge before this Court. We also fail to comprehend how a demarcation could be conducted without their being partition of the mortgaged property as we find that some of the mortgaged property is in the joint holding of co-sharers. Therefore, the case is dismissed.”

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *