# Murali v. A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Ghazipur & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 240
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 22149 of 2000
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/murali-v-a-d-m-finance-revenue-ghazipur-anr-49136
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Land Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 115-A/Form 49-A , 115-C - Notice -
The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 9, 49,
117, 198, 122-B - Powers of the Land
Management Committee and the Collector
- If any property of Gram Sabha is
damaged or misappropriated, the Land
Management Committee and the Collector
are duty bound to take action - no right by
way of adverse possession accrues over
the land of the State - Long standing
possession does not confer any right to
any person over the land of the State or
the Gram Panchayat - no limitation
regarding dispossession of any person as
the such person cannot take plea that he
is in occupation since long because his
possession over the Gram Panchayat land
is illegal - no limitation for the eviction of
an unauthorized occupant. (Para
-
11,22,23 )

Property in suit belongs to Gram Panchayat land
- no objection during consolidation proceedings
- no allotment to petitioner - petitioner an
unauthorized
occupant
-
responsible
for
damaging, misappropriating, illegally retaining
and occupying property of Gram Panchayat -
petitioner liable to be evicted - to pay
compensation for damages, misappropriation
and wrongful occupation over the property in
suit - recoverable from him as arrears of land
revenue - revision by state - held - no evidence
to establish possession since before abolition of
zamindari - order to evict petitioner.(Para -19 )

HELD:-Petitioner
not
in
possession
and
occupation since before zamindari abolition, but
later
occupied
land
after
consolidation
proceedings
over
banjar
land
of
Gram
Panchayat, resulting in Rank trespasser and
responsibility
to
pay
damages
for
misappropriating and unauthorizedly occupying
the land. Order of revisional court upheld.
(Para -28 )

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be attracted in the facts of either of the writ
petitions. Learned counsel states that he
does not wish to press the petitions and that
the petitioners would seek declaration of
their rights by instituting proceedings
before the appropriate forum.

20. Counsel for the State respondents
and the counsel for the private respondents
have no objection.

21. The writ petitions stand disposed
of in terms of the prayer so made.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 240
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 22149 of 2000

Murali ...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Ghazipur &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.R. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anuj Kumar

(A) Land Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 115-A/Form 49-A , 115-C - Notice -
The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 9, 49,
117, 198, 122-B - Powers of the Land
Management Committee and the Collector
- If any property of Gram Sabha is
damaged or misappropriated, the Land
Management Committee and the Collector
are duty bound to take action - no right by
way of adverse possession accrues over
the land of the State - Long standing
possession does not confer any right to
any person over the land of the State or
the Gram Panchayat - no limitation
regarding dispossession of any person as
the such person cannot take plea that he
is in occupation since long because his
possession over the Gram Panchayat land
is illegal - no limitation for the eviction of
an unauthorized occupant. (Para
-
11,22,23 )

Property in suit belongs to Gram Panchayat land
- no objection during consolidation proceedings
- no allotment to petitioner - petitioner an
unauthorized
occupant
-
responsible
for
damaging, misappropriating, illegally retaining
and occupying property of Gram Panchayat -
petitioner liable to be evicted - to pay
compensation for damages, misappropriation
and wrongful occupation over the property in
suit - recoverable from him as arrears of land
revenue - revision by state - held - no evidence
to establish possession since before abolition of
zamindari - order to evict petitioner.(Para -19 )

HELD:-Petitioner
not
in
possession
and
occupation since before zamindari abolition, but
later
occupied
land
after
consolidation
proceedings
over
banjar
land
of
Gram
Panchayat, resulting in Rank trespasser and
responsibility
to
pay
damages
for
misappropriating and unauthorizedly occupying
the land. Order of revisional court upheld.
(Para -28 )

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chob Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2000 RD 233

2. Suraj Bali Vs Gaon Sabha , 1982 AWC (R) 149

3. Shripati Vs Gaon Sabha , 1994 (23) ALR (R)
18

4. Uttam Singh Vs B.O.R. , 1980 AWC 600

5. Sukhdev Vs Collector, Banda , 2007 (102)
RD 83 (HC)

6. Dal Singh Vs Additional Collector, Meerut ,
2006 (101) RD (H) 7 (HC)
1 All. Murali Vs. A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Ghazipur & Anr.
241
7. Bhagwan Vs Gaon Sabha, Bijnore , 2006
(100) RD 620

8. Ganga Saran Vs St. of U.P. , 1992 RD 382
(Supp)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. This writ petition has been
instituted
to
quash
the
order
dated
25.04.2000 passed by Additional District
Magistrate
(Finance
and
Revenue),
Ghazipur by which the revision was
accepted and the lower court's order dated
11.07.1991 was quashed and it was held
that gata no.13/4kha area 0-6-0 hectare is
the Gram Panchayat land from which the
petitioner was evicted and Rs.720/- as
damages and Rs.5/- as execution fee were
imposed.

2. The Court already heard Sri M.R.
Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Jitendra Narayan Rai, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
respondent no.1.

3. The petitioner has taken ground
and has mentioned the facts that a notice
(annexure-1) under Rule 115-A/Form 49-A
of UPZA and LR Rules was issued to the
petitioner regarding plot no.13/4 area 0-6-9
dismal
situated
in
Village
Kazipur,
Pargana, Tehsil and District Ghazipur by
Assistant Collector First Class, Ghazipur.
The petitioner filed objection (annexure-2)
under Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 19501 and under Rule 115-C of the
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 19522 stating that
over the plot in suit the petitioner's house,
trees, naad, khoota and charan are standing
since the period of zamindari. In evidence
dated 06.04.1991 (annexure-3) lekhpal
admitted that house is 50 years old and
trees are 40-45 years old and there are nad,
khoonta and charan which were also in the
disputed land. Tehsildar, Sadar by his order
dated 11.07.1991 (annexure-4) dismissed
the case giving finding that he has also
made inspection and the house his more
than 50 years old and nad, khoonta, charan
and trees of the petitioner are there and he
is living since more than 50 years.

4. Respondent no.1 giving perverse
finding allowed the revision vide order
dated 25.04.2000 (annexure-5). As per
intekhab,
khatauni
(annexure-6)
the
petitioner is a marginal farmer having only
.680 area of land. If the impugned order
dated 25.04.2000 is not quashed the
petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and
injury. Hence, the petition be allowed and
impugned order be quashed and the writ of
mandamus be also issued directing the
respondent not to dispossess the petitioner
from the property in suit.

5. All the papers referred in the
petition are annexed by the petitioner. No
counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents. The petitioner is Yadav by
caste. He has annexed only one extract of
khatauni from which it is disclosed that an
area 0.680 hectare is recorded in the name
of petitioner but no other paper like
question-answer has been filed to establish
that except the aforementioned area of land
the petitioner is not the owner of any other
land. If the petitioner is marginal farmer
and he comes under the category of
priority, any land not belonging to public
utility land of the village panchayat can be
allotted to him but neither proposal for
allotment of patta of the property in suit has
been made in favour of the petitioner nor
any patta has been executed in his favour as
per law.
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. It is admitted to the parties that the
property in suit khasra no.13/4 is Gram
Panchayat banjar land. According to the
petitioner there is naad, khoonta, charan,
hut, trees, house and khalihan of the
petitioner for more than 50 years and the
petitioner is living there for more than 50
years but the Lekhpal has deposed that the
petitioner has illegally occupied the land
after consolidation. According to the
petitioner these things are since the time of
his father, Vishambhar.

7. Neither the petitioner nor the
respondent has filed extract of khatauni and
khasra but from the impugned order and on
the basis of admission of the petitioner, it
was established fact that the property in suit
is Gram Panchayat banjar land.

8. In cross-examination the Lekhpal
has admitted that before consolidation the
property in suit was not abadi land but it
would have been banjar land. At present
also it is recorded as banjar land in which
about 8 persons have unauthorizedly
occupied the land of Gram Panchayat
against which reports have been made.

9. According to Lekhpal name of
Murali's father is Tufani not Vishuni. He
further reported that over the property in
suit the petitioner has constructed naad,
charan, khoonta, hut and house. There are
trees also in front of the house. The land is
used by the petitioner as abadi land. The
petitioner is in possession for about 5-6
years before. The Tehsildar has also
referred the statement of Lekhpal in which
the Lekhpal had deposed that the total area
of khasra no.13 is 5-11-13 out of which 6
dismal area has been occupied by the
defendant. Khasra no.13 was not the abadi
land before the consolidation. The property
in suit is recorded as banjar land. In order
dated 11.07.1991 the Tehsildar concluded
that there are about 50 years old houses in
the property in suit. There are other things
hence notice under Section 49-A had been
taken back. The State had preferred
revision i.e. Revision No.9 of 1991, under
Section 122-B(4A) of the Act, 1950 which
has
been
decided
by
Additional
Collector/ADM, Ghazipur on 25.08.2000 in
which the State has condemned the order of
Tehsildar and said that Tehsildar has not
rightly analyzed the evidence available on
record.

10. From the records it is proved that the
property in suit is Gram Panchayat property
and the Tehsildar has passed the order beyond
his jurisdiction. The revisional court found that
the property in suit i.e. khasra no.13/4 area 6
dismal is banjar Gaon Sabha land upon which
the petitioner had constructed houses etc. The
petitioner has said that the house etc. are since
before the zamindari abolition, naad khoonta,
charan, khalihan and hut are also there since
before the zamindari abolition. The revisional
court pointed out the statement of Lekhpal that
the property in suit was not the abadi land
since before the consolidation but was a banjar
land which has been occupied by the
respondent after the consolidation. The
revisional court also found that the petitioner
has not produced any evidence to establish his
possession since before the abolition of
zamindari and for the purposes of suit oral
evidence is not sufficient. The revisional court
concluded that the order of the lower court is
incorrect and allowed the revision and passed
an order to evict the petitioner and imposed
Rs.720/- as damages and Rs.5/- as execution
fees. The revisional court also directed that the
file be consigned after complying with the
order.

11. From perusal of the papers
available on record it has been clearly
1 All. Murali Vs. A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Ghazipur & Anr.
243
established that the property in suit is Gram
Panchayat banjar land and the petitioner is
Yadav by caste who belongs to OBC. If
any property of Gram Sabha is damaged or
misappropriated, the Land Management
Committee and the Collector are duty
bound to take action. In this regard rules
and laws are framed under Section 122-B
of the Act, 1950. Since the matter belongs
to the time when the Act, 1950 was into
operation therefore, the provisions of the
aforementioned Act are considered and
referred. Section 122-B of the Act, 1950
reads as under:-

"122-B. Powers of the Land
Management
Committee
and
the
Collector.--(1) Where any property vested
under the provisions of this Act in a Gaon
Sabha or a local authority is damaged or
misappropriated or where any Gaon Sabha
or local authority is entitled to take or
retain possession of any land under the
provisions of this Act and such land is
occupied otherwise than in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, the Land
Management Committee or local authority,
as the case may be, shall inform the
Assistant Collector concerned in the
manner prescribed.

(2) Where from the information
received
under
sub-section
(1)
or
otherwise,
the
Assistant
Collector
is
satisfied that any property referred to in
sub-section (1) has been damaged or
misappropriated or any person is in
occupation of any land, referred to in that
sub-section,
in
contravention
of
the
provisions of this Act, he shall issue notice
to the person concerned to show cause why
compensation
for
damage,
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
as mentioned in such notice be not
recovered from him or, as the case may be,
why he should not be evicted from such
land.(3) If the person to whom a notice has
been issued under sub-section (2) fails to
show cause within the time specified in the
notice or within such extended time not
exceeding thirty days from the date of
service of such notice on such person, as
the Assistant Collector may allow in this
behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be
insufficient, the Assistant Collector may
direct that such person may be evicted from
the land any may for that purpose, use, or
cause to be used such force as may be
necessary and may direct that the amount
of
compensation
for
damage,
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
be recovered from such person as arrears
of land revenue.

(4) If the Assistant Collector is of
the opinion that the person showing cause
is not guilty of causing the damage or
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
referred to in the notice under sub-section
(2) he shall discharge the notice.

(4-A) Any person aggrieved by
the order of the Assistant Collector under
sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) may,
within thirty days from the date of such
order, prefer a revision before the
Collector on the grounds mentioned in
clauses (a) to (e) of Section 333.

(4-B)
The
procedure
to
be
followed in any action taken under this
section shall be such as may be prescribed.

(4-C) Notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 333 or Section 333-A,
but subject to the provisions of this section--

(i) every order of the Assistant
Collector under this section shall, subject
to the provisions of sub-sections (4-A) and
(4-D), be final,

(ii) every order of the Collector
under this section shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (4-D), be final.

(4-D) Any person aggrieved by
the order of the Assistant Collector or
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Collector in respect of any property under
this section may file a suit in a Court of
competent jurisdiction to establish the right
claimed by him in such property.

(4-E) No such suit as is referred
to in sub-section (4-D) shall lie against an
order of the Assistant Collector if a
revision is preferred to the Collector under
sub-section (4-A)

Explanation.- For the purposes of
this section, the expression ''Collector'
means the officer appointed as ''Collector'
under the provisions of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an
Additional Collector.

(4-F) Notwithstanding anything
in the foregoing sub-sections, where any
agricultural labourer belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in
occupation of any land vested in a Gaon
Sabha under Section 117 (not being land
mentioned in Section 132) having occupied
it from before May 13, 2007 and the land
so occupied together with land, if any, held
by him from before the said date as
bhumidhar, Sirdar or asami, does not
exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no
action under this section shall be taken by
the Land Management Committee or the
Collector against such labourer, and he
shall be admitted as bhumidhar with nontransferable rights of that land under
Section 195 and it shall not be necessary
for him to institute a suit for declaration of
his
rights
as
bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights in that land.

Explanation.--The
expression
"agricultural labourer" shall have the
meaning assigned to it in Section 198.

5. Rules 115-C to 115-H of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Rules, 1952, shall be and be
always deemed to have been made under
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 as amended by the Uttar
Pradesh Land Laws (Second Amendment)
Act, 1961, as if this section has been in
force on all material dates and shall
accordingly continue in force until altered
or repealed or amended in accordance with
the provisions of this Act."

12. According to Section 122-B(1) if
any property vested in Gram Panchayat is
damaged or misappropriated the Gram
Panchayat is entitled to take or retain
possession. If the land is occupied
otherwise than in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, 1950, the Land
Management Committee or local Authority
shall
inform
the
Assistant
Collector
concerned in the manner prescribed. Under
Section 122-B(2) if Assistant Collector is
satisfied that the property of Gram
Panchayat
has
been
damaged
or
misappropriated or any person is in
occupation of any land in contravention of
the provisions of the Act, 1950, he shall
issue notice to the concerned person to
show
cause
why
compensation
for
damages, misappropriation or wrongful
occupation be not recovered from him and
why he should not be evicted from such
land. According to Section 122-B(3) if the
explanation is found to be insufficient the
Assistant Collector may direct that such
person may be evicted from the land and
direct that the amount of compensation for
damages, misappropriation or wrongful
occupation be received as arrears of land
revenue. According to Section 122-B(4) if
the Assistant Collector is of opinion that
the person is not guilty of causing the
damage or misappropriation or wrongful
occupation, he shall discharge the notice.

13. In this case the Assistant Collector
has discharged the notice being satisfied
that the petitioner was in occupation for
about 50 years over the property in suit.
1 All. Murali Vs. A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Ghazipur & Anr.
245

14. According to Section 122-B(4A)
any person aggrieved by the order of
Assistant Collector may within 30 days
prefer a revision before the Collector on the
grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of
Section 333 of the Act, 1950. According to
Section 122-B(4C) every order of the
Assistant Collector shall be final subject to
the provisions of sub-sections (4A) and
(4D) meaning thereby the order of the
Assistant Collector would be subject to the
decision of the revisional court or subject to
sub-section (4D) and further every order of
the Collector under shall be final subject to
the
provisions
of
sub-section
(4D).
According to Section 122-B(4D), any
person aggrieved by the order of the
Assistant Collector or the Collector in
respect of any property under this Section,
may file a suit in a court of competent
jurisdiction to establish the right claimed
by him in such property. But sub-section
(4E) imposes a rider that no such suit as is
referred to in sub-section (4D) shall lie
against an order of the Assistant Collector,
if a revision is preferred to the Collector
under sub-section (4A).

15. In this case the State has exercised
its power under sub-section (4A) and has
preferred revision before the Collector
which has been allowed on 25.04.2000
though no revision has been preferred by
the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the right
to file suit by the petitioner still exists.

16. Sub-section (4F) provides a
remedy from the eviction to the persons
who are agricultural labourer belonging to
a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. If
they are in occupation of any land vested in
a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being
the land mentioned in Section 132) having
occupied it from before May 13, 2007 and
the land so occupied together with land, if
any, held by him from before the said date
as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami does not
exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres) then no
action (under this section) shall be taken by
the Land Management Committee or the
Collector against such labourer and shall be
admitted
as
bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights of that land under
Section 195 and it shall not be necessary
for him to institute a suit for declaration of
his
rights
as
bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights in that land.

17. As it is admitted to both the
parties that the petitioner being Yadav by
caste is a member of OBC, he does not
belong to scheduled caste or scheduled
tribe, therefore, the protection of subsection (4F) is not available to him.

18. It is also admitted to the parties
that the concerned village has been under
the consolidation operation and after the
consolidation new records of rights have
been prepared in which the property in suit
has been left as Gaon Sabha banjar land
which belongs to Gram Panchayat property
under Section 117 of the Act, 1950. If the
petitioner's house and the other things
would have been there, certainly at the time
of preparation of akar patra 2-Ka during
the consolidation operation it would have
been
noticed
by
the
consolidation
authorities meaning thereby consolidation
authorities left this land for the purposes of
Gaon Sabha as Gaon Sabha land which can
be allotted to the eligible persons in
accordance with law as enumerated in
Section 198 of the Act, 1950. The
petitioner
has
neither
made
any
representation nor moved any application
to allot the land to him nor Land
Management Committee has proposed the
land in suit to allot the petitioner nor any
such order has been passed by the
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competent authority. If the petitioner was in
use and occupation over the property in suit
since before the zamindari abolition, it was
his duty to file objection before the
consolidation authorities that the property
in suit has been vested with him under
Section 9 of the Act, 1950 and is not open
and available for the consolidation. If no
such objection or application has been
moved or if such objection or application
has been moved but has been declined by
the consolidation authorities, there would
be bar to raise the objection again in view
of Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953.

19. In this case the property in suit
belongs to the Gram Panchayat land about
which no objection had been raised by the
petitioner
during
the
consolidation
proceedings. The property in suit has not
been allotted to the petitioner, therefore, it
is concluded that the petitioner is an
unauthorized occupant and is responsible
for damaging, misappropriating, illegally
retaining and occupying the property of the
Gram Panchayat, therefore, the petitioner is
liable to be evicted and is also liable to pay
compensation
for
damages,
misappropriation and wrongful occupation
over the property in suit which is
recoverable from him as arrears of land
revenue.

20. In Chob Singh Vs. State of UP,
Suraj Bali Vs. Gaon Sabha and Shripati
Vs. Gaon Sabha it is held that illegal
construction on Gaon Sabha land, planting
of trees and including a part of chakroad in
the adjoining land are instances of causing
damage or misappropriation of Gaon Sabha
property.

21. In Uttam Singh Vs. Board of
Revenue it is held that the Board of
Revenue is competent to direct the
demolition of construction.

22. It is settled law that no right by
way of adverse possession accrues over the
land of the State. Long standing possession
does not confer any right to any person
over the land of the State or the Gram
Panchayat and there is no limitation
regarding dispossession of any person as
the such person cannot take plea that he is
in occupation since long because his
possession over the Gram Panchayat land is
illegal.

23. In Sukhdev Vs. Collector,
Banda it is held that there is no limitation
for the eviction of an unauthorized
occupant.

24. In this petition the petitioner has
also taken plea that he is in possession
since before the abolition of zamindari but
about this the revisional court had given
finding that on the basis of the evidence of
Lekhpal that about eight persons have
illegally occupied the land of the impugned
khasra and notices have been issued to
them. The revisional court has concluded
that the petitioner has occupied land after
the
termination
of
consolidation
proceedings.

25. In Dal Singh Vs. Additional
Collector, Meerut it is held that finding
regarding unauthorized occupation is a
finding of fact and it is not liable to be
quashed by the High Court. The principles
laid down in this case goes against the
petitioner.

26. Though the property in suit is not
the abadi land but is recorded as banjar
land but in Bhagwan Vs. Gaon Sabha,
Bijnore it is held that proceedings under
1 All. Shipra Hotels Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
247
this section can be initiated, even if land in
dispute is abadi land.

27. It has already been concluded that
since the petitioner does not belong to the
scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, the
benefit under sub-section (4F) is not
available to him. In Ganga Saran Vs.
State of UP it is held that the benefit of
sub-section (4F) is not available to a
member of backward class.

28. On the basis of the aforesaid
discussion this Court is of the view that the
petitioner was not in possession and
occupation over the property in suit since
before the zamindari abolition. He had
occupied the land later on after the closer
of consolidation proceedings over the
banjar land of Gram Panchayat for which
he was in no way entitled. He is a rank
trespasser and he is responsible to pay the
damages
for
misappropriating
and
unauthorizedly occupying the land of Gram
Panchayat hence the order of the revisional
court is upheld. The petition lacks merit
and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

ORDER

29. The petition is dismissed and the
order of revisional court dated 25.04.2000
is affirmed. The respondents may proceed
to comply with the order of the revisional
court and this Court as well.

30. A copy of this order be sent to the
Collector,
Ghazipur
for
necessary
compliance.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 247
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ-C No. 22594 of 2022
Connected with
Other Writ-C Cases

Shipra Hotels Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Komal Mehrotra, Sri Aditya Sharma, Sri
Mohammad Khalid, Sri Amit Saxena, Sri
Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Raghav Dwivedi, Sri Veerendra
Kumar Shukla, Sri Navin Sinha (Senior
Adv.), Sri Apurva Hajela

(A) SARFAESI Law - The Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Securities Interest
Act, 2002 - Section 13(2), 13(4) -
Enforcement of security interest, Section
14 - Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
District
Magistrate
to
assist
secured
creditor in taking possession of secured
asset - "Ministerial Act" - The Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rule
8 - sale of immovable secured assets -
principles of natural justice are integral
part of Article 14.(Para - 43)

Validity of order passed under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act' 2002 - under challenge - ground
- no notice or opportunity of hearing granted to
petitioners (borrowers) - issue - whether
borrower entitled to notice and opportunity of
hearing in the proceeding under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act, 2022.(Para -2,22)

(B)
Principles
of
natural
justice
-
observance of principles of natural justice
is at the stage of Section 13(3A), i.e.
before the secured creditor proceeds to
initiate coercive measure against the
borrower under Section 13(4) of the Act -
Once the borrower is granted opportunity
at the stage prior to initiation of the