AALHA CHAURASIYA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 15902 of 2026

Aalha Chaurasiya And 2 Others
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 7 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Arvind Kumar Mishra,             Surendra
                                  Kumar Chaubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : C.S.C., Sanjai Singh

Court No. - 1
                  HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
                  HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri S.K.Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has questioned the order passed by the prescribed authority
dated 17th February, 2024 and consequential letter issued on 09.04.2026
by respondent no. 3 in purported exercise of power under Section 14 of
the SARFEISI Act,2002.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a valid own
tenure holder of the plot in question bearing Plot no. 401 Minjumla as he
has purchased the property from the original tenure holder Baila Devi and
khatauni/record of rights in that regard has been brought on record as
annexure 10 to the petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits
that as per record of rights, the name of one Radheyshyam and Subhash
came to be recorded over and above the land in question bearing Plot No.
401 Minjumla with the total area of 0.8232 hectares. He submits that in
fact, the plot belongs to one Bhola who executed a will in favour of
Radheyshyam and Subhash whose name got incorporated on the basis of
the Will and thereafter they sold their property to the present borrower.
The Will has also been placed before us along with instructions. Copy of
the instructions is also supplied to the counsel for the petitioner.
                                                                                         WRIC No. 15902 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having
                                    perused the records, we find that there is a serious contest between the
                                    parties as to the identity of the mortgaged property while the petitioner
                                    places reliance upon certain revenue entries and claims valid Will and
                                    right in respect of the property in question. The bank says that the
                                    property belongs to the borrower who had borrowed loan and the bank
                                    had advanced loan after due verification. This all involves questions of
                                    facts and have to be determined under Section 17 of the SARFEISI Act,
                                    2002 as to whether the bank has really proceeded as per the procedure
                                    prescribed under Section 13 of the SARFEISI Act, 2002 after identifying
                                    the property. In our considered view, therefore petitioner should apply
                                    under Section 17 of the SARFEISI Act, 2002. Hence, we decline to
                                    interfere in the matter at this stage.

                                    6. However we still provide that if petitioner moves a petition under
                                    Section 17 of the SARFEISI Act, 2002 along with stay application within
                                    a period of four weeks from today, the stay application shall be heard and
                                    disposed of may be through video conferencing by the Debt Recovery
                                    Tribunal having jurisdiction of Allahabad within a further period of four
                                    weeks after due opportunity of hearing to the bank. The Debt Recovery
                                    Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of Section 17 petition itself
                                    within a further period of three months on merits. Any mortgaged sale
                                    that has taken place pursuant to which possession may be asked for by the
                                    bank in favour of the auction purchaser shall abide by the final outcome
                                    of the DRT petition.

                                    7. The writ petition stands disposed of.



                                                                       (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Pratima




Digitally signed by :-
PRATIMA AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad