Patna High Court
Anita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The Court held that the petition for mandamus cannot be entertained and allowed the petitioner to make a representation to the finance company, which must consider it on its merits.
Summary
Anita Devi filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to restrain various authorities, including the District Magistrate and a finance company, from taking possession of her dwelling house, which she contends is not mortgaged under loan account No. LAP4MTH000088858. She also requested that the finance company consider a one‑time settlement of the loan amount of approximately Rs. 32,15,233. The finance company argued that only the mortgaged land could be auctioned and that the petition’s relief could not be granted. The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to issue a mandamus and instead directed the petitioner to make a formal representation to the finance company within four weeks. The finance company was ordered to consider the representation on its merits within four weeks of receipt. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the authorities can take possession of a dwelling house that is not mortgaged under the loan agreement.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain the possession proceedings.
- Whether the SARFAESI Act, 2002 applies to the present dispute and permits the finance company to proceed with possession.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- possession
- mortgage
- SARFAESI Act
- settlement
- representation
- property law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3963 of 2026
======================================================
Anita Devi, Wife of Late Sonalal Prasad, Resident of Ward No. 15, Dudhahi,
P.S.-Harsidhi, District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East
Champaran.
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran.
3. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Areraj, East Champaran.
5. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Areraj, East Champaran.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Reserved Police Center, East
Champaran, Motihari.
7. The Circle Officer, Harsiddhi, East Champaran.
8. The S.H.O., Harsiddhi, East Champaran.
9. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited through its
Authorized Officer Chola Crest, C54-55 and Super B-4 Thiru-Vi-Ka
Industrial Estate Guindy Chennai-600032.
10. The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam, Investment and Finance Company
Limited, Bariarpur Bye Pass Road, P.S.-Chhatauni, District- East
Champaran.
11. The S.H.O., Govindganj, District- East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
6 06-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus restraining the
concerned respondent from proceeding
Patna High Court CWJC No.3963 of 2026(6) dt.06-07-2026
2/3
further in view of the order dated 28.02.2026
as contained in Memo No. 947 dated
28.02.2026 issued under the signature of
District Magistrate, East Champaran
whereby and whereunder the Circle Officer,
Harsiddhi was deputed for taking possession
of the property as fully described in Para-5 of
the instant writ application as the same has
been issued without taking into account that
the petitioner is ready to settle the loan
account of Respondent No. 9.
(ii) For further direction the
concerned respondent authorities not to take
possession of the property other than which
has been mortgaged against loan account
No. LAP4MTH000088858 since the
concerned respondent in the garb of loan
agreement are trying to take possession of the
dwelling house of the petitioner which is not
mortgaged.
(iii) For further restraining the
respondent from proceeding under the
Secularization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act 2002.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner may be
permitted to make a suitable representation to the Respondent-
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited
seeking one time settlement or paying the entire due amount as
of 17.03.2026 approximately Rs. 32,15,233/- in equal
installments and the Bank may be directed to consider the same.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent-Cholamandalam, Investment and Finance Company
Patna High Court CWJC No.3963 of 2026(6) dt.06-07-2026
3/3
Limited submits that in case the petitioner makes any
application/representation, the same shall be considered in
accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that the authority
will only auction the land which is mortgaged and not any
property which is not mortgaged, therefore, the prayer sought
for in the present writ petition cannot be considered.
5. Having regard to the above made submissions, the
present writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the
petitioner to make a suitable representation to the Respondent-
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited
ventilating her grievance within a period of four weeks from
today. On such representation being given, the respondent-
authority shall consider the same on its own merits as
expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of 4 weeks
from the date of the receipt of the said representation by the
petitioner.
6. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.