Bala Subramaniyan S Vs Branch Manager (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Bala Subramaniyan S seeking compensation of ₹20 crore from Indian Overseas Bank and the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal for allegedly failing to deliver possession of the entire property purchased in a bank auction. The petitioner submitted that he had purchased the property in an auction conducted in 2004, paid the full auction consideration of ₹10,50,000 and obtained a registered sale certificate on 19 January 2006. However, while one portion of the land had been conveyed in his favour, possession of the remaining portion had allegedly not been delivered despite the passage of more than two decades.
He contended that the prolonged failure to hand over the remaining property had caused substantial financial loss and justified compensation from the respondents. The respondents opposed the writ petition on the ground that proceedings concerning the same property remained pending before the competent recovery forums, specifically T.R.C. No. 28 of 2003 before the DRT, Madurai, and Appeal No. 1 of 2024 before the DRAT, Madurai. They argued that the compensation claim involved disputed questions of fact that required adjudication in those proceedings or before a competent civil court rather than through a writ petition.
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench comprising Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice N. Dilip Kumar observed that proceedings relating to the subject property were admittedly pending before competent forums. The alleged failure to deliver possession and the resulting claim for compensation involved disputed factual questions that could not be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings. The Court therefore held that the writ petition was misconceived and dismissed it without costs. However, the petitioner was expressly granted liberty to raise all grievances and seek appropriate relief before the competent forum in the pending proceedings or before the appropriate civil court in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the the respondents to pay Rs.20 Crores (Rupees Twenty Crores) as compensation to the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner purchased the property through auction and paid Rs.10,50,000/- and obtained sale certificate registered on 19.01.2006, one portion of the land was conveyed in favour of the petitioner, the remaining portion of the land was not conveyed in his favour. Though the petitioner had paid the entire auction amount in the year 2004, he has not been able to secure possession of the remaining portion of the land. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed seeking compensation from the respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, though the petitioner purchased the property in the auction conducted in the year 2004, till date, the respondent Bank/Recovery Officer has not handed over possession of the remaining portion of the land. As the petitioner had paid the entire auction amount as early as in the year 2004, he has suffered substantial loss on account of the failure to hand over possession of the remaining portion of the property. Hence, the petitioner seeks compensation from the respondents.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that proceedings are still pending before the DRT and DRAT. T.R.C.No.28 of 2003 is pending on the file of the DRT, Madurai and Appeal No.1 of 2024 is also pending consideration before the DRAT, Madurai. When the proceedings relating to the subject property are still pending before the competent forums, the present writ petition seeking compensation is not maintainable. The disputed questions of fact are required to be adjudicated either in the pending proceedings before the DRT/DRAT or before the competent Civil Court, in accordance with law. Hence, the present writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
6. Admittedly, proceedings relating to the subject property are pending before the competent forums. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to compensation on account of the alleged failure to hand over possession of a portion of the auctioned property involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate all his grievances and seek appropriate relief before the competent forum in the pending proceedings or before the appropriate Civil Court, in accordance with law.
7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
