Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
M/S New Western Motors Th. Its vs Uco Bank And Ors on 12 March, 2025
Author: Puneet Gupta
Bench: Puneet Gupta
Serial No. 74
Supp. Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 523/2025 CM(1285/2025) Caveat 123/2025
M/S New Western Motors Th. Its ... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Proprietor
Through: Ms. Sabeena Naveed, Advocate
Vs.
Uco Bank And Ors ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. N.A. Dendru, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
12.03.2025
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is
aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2024 by which the proceedings have
been initiated by the District Magistrate for taking possession of a
residential house falling under Survey No. 2465/1045, Khata No. 536,
Khewat No. 48 which measures 1 Kanal situated at Nowpora.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the said
order as it is her contention that the possessions of the property which was
mortgaged by the petitioner has already been taken into possession by the
Bank and the present proceedings before the District Magistrate have been
initiated maliciously on the basis of false representations.
In order to buttress her case, learned counsel for the petitioner
has referred to the order dated 16.01.2025 which is a notice which has
been issued to the petitioner by which it is stated therein by the respondent
Bank that the Authorized Officer has already taken possession of the
immovable secured asset under Section 13 (8) of the SARFEASI Act read
with Rule 8(6) Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Arif Hameed
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.03.2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
possession has already been taken on 16.01.2025, the proceedings
impugned before the District Magistrate are malicious in law as a second
proceeding with regard to the property which is already taken possession
of is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked by this Court as
to whether the said property belonged to her, to which she stated
categorically that the residential property which is sought to be taken over
by the order dated 20.12.2024 does not belong to her and she is not the
owner of the said house, but only living in it. It is not clarified in what
capacity the petitioner is living in the said house. It is also undisputed that
the owner of the said property is not before this Court.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner does not have a locus
standi as the petitioner is not the person aggrieved, as that would be the
owner of the property who has never moved before this Court.
Under the circumstances, on account of the fact that the
petitioner is not the person aggrieved by the impugned order, the locus
standi of the petitioner is not sustainable. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
(PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
12.03.2025
"Aamir"
Arif Hameed
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
13.03.2025
