ANIL KUMAR SOOD vs IFCI LTD AND ORS on 29 November 2019

**FINAL ORDER**

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer - II in RC No. 116 of 2010 along with other relief(s).

2. The brief facts of the case are that instant appeal is being filed against the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 passed by Ld. Recovery Officer-

II, DRT-III, Delhi, in RC No. 116/2010 whereby the Ld. Recovery Officer without application of judicial mind, exceeding his jurisdiction and powers and also misconstruing the settled law has not only directed the parties (including appellant) to maintain Status Quo qua the property-in-question but also has granted liberty to the CDs and Objector to file their objections (beyond limitation) and that too on verbal request, which is something unheard of in law and in practice. Still, the sale was conducted under the orders of Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 02.04.2018 and after conducting the sale and getting bid after failure of more than 10 auctions in past 19-years, a single bid was received and Ld. Recovery Officer after confirming the sale, as none filed any objections pre-sale or post sale, on his ownself has ordered status quo, as if he is assuming appellant jurisdiction of his own orders. Hence, this appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 passed by Ld. Recovery Officer.

3. It is stated in the appeal that appellant herein is a bonafide auction purchaser who has purchased the immovable mortgaged property being All that piece & parcels, buildings & structures at B-5, Focal Point, Rajpura, Punjab admeasuring 12415 (hereinafter referred to as 'property-in-question') in a public auction conducted by Ld. Recovery Officer on 30.11.2018. The respondent no. 1 is a financial institution and is alleged to have granted certain credit facility to the respondent no. 2. It is also stated that the respondent no. 2, who was principal borrower of the respondent no. 1, is presently under liquidation with the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. In view of defaults committed by respondent no. 2 in repayment of the credit facilities, the respondent no. 1 filed an OA no. 450/2000 before Hon'ble DRT-I, Delhi against the respondent no. 2 and its guarantor and mortgagors which was allowed vide Final Order dated 26.11.2010 and pursuant thereto, a Recovery Certificate being RC No. 116/2010 was issued, accordingly, recovery proceedings were initiated against the respondent no. 2.

4. Further, it is stated that in CWP No. 22219 of 2017 titled "Harjinder Singh Vs. Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, New Delhi & Ors.", Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order dated 02.04.2018 directed the Ld. Recovery Officer and respondent no.1 to make a fresh efforts to seal the mortgaged properties after getting their market value re-evaluated. However, after taking eight adjournments from 15.05.2018 till 11.07.2018, the respondent no. 1 filed the valuation report on 16.07.2018 and requested to put the property

(12415 sq. yds.) on auction with reserve price of Rs. 6.90 crore. Further, in view of some typographical mistake in sale proclamation dated 16.07.2018, fresh sale proclamation (for all those pieces and parcels of land measuring 12415 sq. yds.) dated 03.08.2018 was issued where date of e-auction was fixed on 20.09.2018 with reserve price of Rs. 6,90,38,000/-. On 09.10.2018, it was informed to the Ld. Recovery Officer that auction dated 20.09.2018 has failed for want of bids. It is pertinent to note that in all the valuation reports, especially the recent valuation reports, on the basis of which Recovery Officer had been fixing the reserve price and conducting the sale, it was clearly mentioned in all that there are 18-shops constructed over the land-in-question. Thus, it is beyond any pale of doubt, that Recovery Officer was fully aware of the exact description of land, its contents and its features including the extent of construction thereupon, which is evident from the record of the Recovery Officer.

5. It is further stated that at the request of CHFI, reserve price was reduced by 15% and fresh sale proclamation (for all those pieces and parcels of land measuring 12415 sq. yds.) dated 09.10.2018 was issued when the date of e-auction was fixed on 30.11.2018 with reserve price of Rs. 5,86,83,000/-.

The appellant herein deposited EMD of Rs. 58,68,000/- by way of DD dated 26.11.2018 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce and participated in the public auction on 30.11.2018. It is also stated that on 30.11.2018, the appellant herein was declared as successful bidder for an amount of Rs. 5,86,83,000/-, accordingly, the appellant deposited the demand draft dated 29.11.2018 drawn on OBC for an amount of Rs. 1.0 crore being the balance of 15% of highest bid amount thereby depositing an amount of 25% of the sale amount in terms of the Sale Proclamation dated 09.10.2018. Further, in compliance of the sale proclamation dated 09.10.2018, the appellant herein deposited an amount of Rs. 4,34,02,000/- consisting of 75% of sale amount and poundage fees as well, as detailed in Para 12 of the appeal.

6. It is stated in the appeal that after 30.11.2018, the matter was listed before Ld. Recovery Officer on 19.12.2018 and Ld. Recovery Officer recorded that the mortgaged property has been sold in public auction on 30.11.2018 and notice was issued to OL for disclosing their dues. Then, the RC was adjourned to 10.01.2019. Thereafter, on 10.01.2019, after recording submissions of OL, CHFI and appellant; the RC was adjourned to 14.01.2019. Further, on 14.01.2019, counsel for CHFI sought time to comply with previous directions and the matter was adjourned to 16.01.2019, however, on 16.01.2019 the Ld. Recovery Officer was busy with this Hon'ble Tribunal in Amrapali cases hence the RC was simply adjourned to 08.02.2019.

7. It is also stated in the appeal that it would be pertinent to mention that the sale notices have been duly published in three newspapers i.e. the Tribute (English edition), Ajit and Dainik Savera on 25.10.2018 and it was pasted on the conspicuous part of the mortgaged property. Moreover, this was not the first time, the sale was being conducted and prior to this at least ten sales had been fixed and all failed. The effort of recovery and sale is going on since 2010, though unsuccessfully.

8. It is further stated that on 17.01.2018 appellant herein filed an application vide diary no. 760 for preponement and confirmation of sale and other consequential relief and the purpose of filing the same was that since no objections had come forth during pre-sale and post sale period of 30-days, confirmation could have been done on an early date, as the appellant immediately wanted to start the construction work as it wanted to start work of expansion in a time bound manner. The said application was mentioned before the Ld. Recovery Officer on 18.01.2019 on which date the Ld. Recovery Officer issued notice on the said application to CHFI and CDs returnable on 28.01.2019. However, despite service, none appeared for CDs on 28.01.2019 and after hearing all the parties and after being satisfied, the Ld. Recovery Officer confirmed the sale in favour of appellant herein and directed the Registry to issue Sale Certificate and also directed the CHFI to return the original documents and physical possession to the appellant in assistance with OL. Thereafter, RC was adjourned to 08.02.2019 i.e. the date already fixed. Accordingly, the Registry issued Sale Certificate in favour of the appellant herein. Thereafter, the appellant approached the office of CHFI for taking actual physical possession of the property and original chain of previous title documents.

9. It is stated that CHFI vide its email dated 31.01.2019 send to the OL attached to Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, requested for assistance in handing over the possession to the auction purchaser / appellant herein. Vide office order dated 05.02.2019, OL appointed its official Sh. M.S. Uniyal to visit the property and to hand over the possession to the appellant / auction purchaser on 06.02.2019. On 06.02.2019, officials of CHFI and OL visited the auctioned property and handed over the actual physical possession of the property-in-question to the appellant / auction purchaser and spot proceedings were prepared at site on 06.02.2019. It is also stated that while handing over the possession to the appellant herein, also demanded physical possession of even those 18-shops constructed upon the mortgaged property. i.e. well within the auctioned area of 12415 sq. yds. in the property-in-question, to which the occupants resisted. It was informed by the representative of OL that the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has already passed a detailed order dated 13.02.2013 with respect to abovesaid illegal shops. Nonetheless, with the subsequent order of Division Bench of High Court dated 02.04.2018, this order was not left with any significance. Even otherwise, from the perusal of order dated 13.02.2013, it is evidence that all the 18-shops are illegally constructed over the property-in-question and are occupied by unauthorized occupants who did not allow the auction purchaser to take the possession even in the presence of representative of OL and CHFI. Moreover, these occupants never filed any objections till date, inspite of the fact, that they were fully aware that their shops have been

illegally constructed upon the mortgaged property, against which there is a decree which they have never challenged and they did not file any objections to the repeated sales being conducted of the mortgaged property and hence they were left with no right whatsoever. It is submitted that apart from the area of illegal 18-shops, the remaining portion of 12415 sq. yds. have been received by the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that after taking physical possession of the property-in-question on 06.02.2019, the appellant here has already started renovation in the premises and have invested a substantial amount in renovation. Further, for getting the remaining portion of property-in-question, the appellant herein filed another application dated 08.02.2019 vide diary no. 1706 for appointment of Receiver for taking possession of remaining area. The said application was taken up on 08.02.2019, on which date also no objections had been filed by any person whatsoever even though limitation had expired long back. The Ld. Recovery Officer did not pass any order on the said application and rather, on the verbal submissions of Objector and CDs not only directed the parties to maintain status quo of the property but also restrained the appellant from creating any 3^rd party interest qua the property. It is also pertinent to mention that the A handwritten signature in blue ink, followed by a horizontal line and the date "29/11" written below it.

appellant herein has also filed an application vide diary no. 2194 dated 19.02.2019 before the Ld. Recovery Officer for highlighting the vital facts which are already available on his record and has prayed for expunging Para 6 from the order dated 08.02.2019. Accordingly, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2019, present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant herein.

10. Notice on this appeal were issued to the respondents, however, respondent no. 1 i.e. FI entered appearance through its counsel.

11. Ld. counsel for respondent FI contended that the reply filed by respondent FI before Hon'ble DRAT may be considered as reply to the present appeal as well. It is stated in the reply that the property-in-question had been mortgaged by respondent no. 2 as security for the credit facilities sanctioned to respondent no. 2 by respondent FI and during the execution of recovery proceedings in RC No. 116/2010, the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-III issued Sale Notice dated 09.10.2018 for the auction of the property bearing all those pieces and parcels of land admeasuring 12415 sq. yds. comprised in Plot No. B-5, Focal Point, Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab on 30.11.2018. Further, it is stated that in pursuance to the said Sale Notice, the said property A handwritten signature in blue ink, appearing to be a stylized 'S' or 'G' followed by a horizontal line and some additional marks.

has been successfully auctioned for an amount of Rs. 5,86,83,000/- and the said Sale amount was deposited by the highest bidder as per the terms and conditions of the said Sale Notice. It is also stated that the Ld. Recovery Officer has confirmed the auction of the said property vide order dated 28.01.2019 in favour of highest bidder Sh. Anil Sood and sale certificate has also been issued to Sh. Anil Sood. Further, the Ld. Recovery Officer vide order dated 28.01.2019 has directed the respondent FI to handover the physical possession of the auctioned property to the auction purchaser in consultation with the OL attached to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and in compliance of aforesaid direction, the OL has handed over the physical possession of the auctioned property to the auction purchaser. Thereafter, the auction purchased moved an application on 08.02.2019 for handing over the possession of 18-shops on the mortgaged property. The Ld. Recovery Officer, on perusal of the aforesaid application, was of the opinion that respondent FI has concealed the fact of 18 shops which are constructed on the mortgaged property and in response to the observations of the Ld. Recovery Officer, respondent FI filed an affidavit vide diary no. 2595 dated 27.02.2019 before the Ld. Recovery Officer wherein IFCI deposed that the CHFI never concealed the fact regarding illegal A handwritten signature in blue ink, followed by a horizontal line and the date "29/11" written below it.

construction of 18-shops on the mortgaged property. It is also submitted that 18-shops constructed on the mortgaged property are illegally constructed shops and hence the valuation of the said shops has been excluded while carrying out the valuation of the said mortgaged property. Further, it is stated that the respondent FI is in support of the present sale for the following reasons :-

- (i) The shops in issue are illegal construction which cannot be legalized by way of sale under the aegis of DRT;

- (ii) The shops have been constructed over a small portion of total land area of 12415 sq. yds.;

- (iii) There is minimal chance of getting any buyer to purchase the illegally constructed shops if sold either at Fair Market Value or Distressed Sale Value.

Hence, it has been prayed to pass appropriate orders on the present appeal filed by the auction purchaser.

12. Heard and the record has been thoroughly perused. In the present matter, the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 has been challenged on the ground that Ld. Recovery Officer stayed the further proceedings with respect to the property-in-question and stated that in the auction notice, 18-shops were not mentioned and this fact has been suppressed on behalf of CHFI and 3^rd party objectors have appeared, who had stated that there is material illegality in the auction conducted on 30.11.2018, however, no formal objections were filed on behalf of third party objectors. Though, the counsel Sh. Suresh Arora appeared in the present matter.

13. The record pertaining to RC No. 116/2010 has been thoroughly perused. Vide order dated 28.01.2019, the Ld. Recovery Officer has directed Sh. Chander Mohan, Assistant (Recovery Cell) to appear before concerned Sub-Registrar for registration of the above said property and the auction purchaser was directed to provide to and fro facility to the officer. The Registry has informed that the highest bidder has deposited the entire auction price i.e. Rs. 5,86,83,000/- as well as poundage fees of Rs. 5,87,000/-. As per the sale proclamation issued by Ld. Recovery Officer on 03.08.2018, the property bearing all those pieces and parcels of land admeasuring 12415 sq. yds. comprised in Plot No. B-5, Focal Point, Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab together with all buildings and structure was put on auction with a reserve price of Rs. 6,90,38,000/-, but the bid was failed. Subsequently, vide sale proclamation dated 09.10.2018, the same was put on auction and reserve price of Rs. 5,86,83,000/- was fixed. Accordingly, the present appellant had participated in the said auction and he was declared as successful bidder for a sum of Rs. 5,86,83,000/- and the property was sold on "as is what basis and as is where is basis". Vide same order dated 28.01.2019, CHFI was directed to hand over the physical possession of the property, in consultation with the Official Liquidator attached by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, to the auction purchaser. Ld. Recovery Officer vide order dated 08.02.2019 has stated that the Ld. counsel for objector sought liberty to file the objections, which were to be filed with respect to 17-shops as shop no. 1, out of 18-shops, was owned by the owner i.e. CD. Apparently, no formal objections were filed as apparent from the order dated 08.02.2019. Further, Ld. Recovery Officer has already passed an order, whereby he appointed Sh. Chander Mohan, Assistant to get the sale deed registered in favour of the appellant herein, however, Ld. Recovery Officer has observed that 18-shops were constructed and this point has been suppressed by the respondent FI and the valuation of the same was not disclosed in the sale Proclamation. However, Ld. counsel for the appellant herein drawn attention of this Tribunal to the order dated 22.12.2011 of Ld. Recovery Officer in RC No. 116/2010, wherein it is mentioned that the CD had disposed off a part of mortgaged property by constructing 18-shops without the permission of CHFI and a complaint was lodged with the EOW, Delhi. Prior to that, the property was put on auction, in view of order passed by Hon'ble High Court, by the OL appointed by Hon'ble Company Court as apparent from the sale notice dated 12.12.2013 of the then OL. Even OL appointed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana put on auction the entire area measuring 12415 sq. yds. along with plant & machinery. During this period, one Writ Petition, wherein, Punjab Urban Development Authority filed an affidavit stating that 18-shops have been illegally constructed. Apart that, one another Writ Petition i.e. WP No. 229/2017 dated 02.04.2018 was also filed by Sh. Harjinder Singh i.e. one of the CD against Recovery Officer-II of this Tribunal, whereby Hon'ble Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh as an interim measure, respondent no. 1 (i.e. Recovery Officer-II of this Tribunal) was directed to make fresh efforts to sell the mortgaged properties after getting their market value re-evaluated and the matter was listed for 19.07.2018. Thereafter, fresh valuation report was filed on 14.07.2018, wherein 18-shops are stated to be situated on main Chandigarh Patiala Road and each shop consists of $12 \frac{1}{2} \times 50$ ft (before binding of road) and it is also mentioned in the same that A handwritten signature in blue ink, followed by the date "29/11" written below it.

this construction of shops in back side of industry is illegal and the Valuer did not consider the value of the shops. Now, in this context, it would be important to mention herein the relevant para of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in WP No.968/2008 titled as *Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority Vs. State of Punjab and another* dated 13.02.2013, which is as under:- ***".....Resultantly, the matter is remitted to the Chief Administrator, PUDA with a direction to the Official Liquidator to apply for compounding of alleged unauthorized construction / mis-use to the extent it is permissible under the Rules. The Chief Administrator, PUDA while imposing the composition fee shall be required to keep in view the fact that the Company is presently in winding up. In case the unauthorized construction / mis-use is found to be non-compoundable, in that event, the Official Liquidator shall be required to mention in the sale notice as and when published, that the prospective vendee shall remove the unauthorized construction and it shall be his responsibility to get it regularized from PUDA. Similar liberty is also granted to PUDA to approach the Company Court, if so required, for issuance of appropriate directions for removal of unauthorized construction / mis-use. The order dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure P-3) also stands modified to that extent above....."***

14. Simultaneously, on behalf of appellant herein, one Writ Petition i.e. C.W.P. No. 6835/2019 was also filed against Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. wherein an affidavit has been filed A handwritten signature in blue ink, followed by the date '29/11' written below it.

by Sh. Mahesh Bansal, Estate Officer (H) of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), PUDA i.e. respondent no. 2. Relevant Paras of aforesaid affidavit dated 01.05.2019 are as under:-

*"5. That the present petitioner is an auction purchaser of the plot in question. In this writ petition, the petitioner has not made any prayer against the office of the answering deponent. As per record, the plot in question was resumed on 29.08.2003 by the then Estate Officer, PUDA because of the violations of the Building Plans. As per the allotment letter (Annexure P-2) the plot in question was allotted for industrial purpose and the allottees were bound to abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The relevant condition no. 12 of the allotment letter is as under:-*

*Xii) The plot shall not be used for any other purpose other than for the construction of the factory building in accordance with the plans, approved by the Competent Authority. The use of the Factory building will also be restricted to the industry approved by the Allotment Committee at the time of allotment. No fragmentation of Sub-Division of the plot shall be permissible. In case of unfragment of any of the above conditions, the plot shall be liable to be resumed and the amount already paid liable to be forfeited to Govt.*

*In view of above condition of allotment letter, the allottee by constructing unauthorized shops on the plot in question had violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The use of the factory building was to be restricted*

*to the industry. The allottee had not only constructed the shops in violation of building rules but had changed the land use of plot from industrial to commercial, in violation of the express terms and condition of allotment letter. The plot was resumed for violation of building rules and conditions of allotment letter, under Section 45 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995.*

*6. That in view of the facts mentioned above, since the plot in question is subject matter of liquidation proceedings the building violations in the form of unauthorized shops existing on the plots are liable to be removed by the petitioner or whosoever would be in ownership of the plot at the relevant time."*

15. Hence, in view of the above said facts, it is apparent that there was unauthorized construction of 18 shops, however, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh passed an order on 13.02.2013. Thus, in the light of that order, LO/RO/FI were required first to proceed to get compound the alleged unauthorized shops, if it was so permissible under rules and in case, it is found to be non-compoundable in that case, it was required to mention in the Sale Notice, as & when published that the unauthorized construction shall be removed. Whereas, the PUDA has also stated in its affidavit filed in WP No. 6835/2019 that the said construction is clear violation of relevant condition XII of the Allotment Letter, as the said Plot was industrial plot and no further fragmentation was permissible in the site plan and it is also held that by raising shops in question, the allottee had violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the same are liable to be removed or whatsoever would be the owner at the relevant time. If it is so, then certainly, the Ld. Recovery Officer was required to put the property on auction with the said condition, but the same has not been mentioned and the entire property has been described as factory premises i.e. admeasuring 12415 sq. yds. and the same has been put on auction. Further, it is to mentioned that in the year 2011, the said property was also put on auction by the Ld. Recovery Officer, as apparent from the order dated 30.08.2011 whereas the plant & machinery including the property bearing Plot No. B-5 was fragmented into two parts i.e. land measuring 11705 sq. yds. excluding 18-shops. Thereafter, the order dated 31.10.2011 was passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer as it was so stated as CHFI that hearing was held on 13.10.2011, *wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the Recovery Officer, DRT, Delhi to hold the auction and the bid was not to be confirmed with* (this word might be without instead of with) *prior permission of Hon'ble High Court of Haryana and Chandigarh.* Accordingly, Ld. counsel for FI requested for settling A handwritten signature in blue ink, followed by the date "29/11" written below it.

sale proclamation excluding 18-shops. Thereafter, the order dated 22.12.2011 was also passed by Ld. Recovery Officer, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the part of the mortgaged property has been disposed off by constructing 18-shops without prior permission of CHFI and accordingly, complaint has been lodged. Apparently, the property was sold by the Ld. Recovery Officer as is what basis and where is basis, then the auction purchaser should be entitled to take the property on the same basis even if there is legal or illegal occupation of the same. Further, in the present matter objection have been filed before Ld. Recovery Officer by certain persons claiming right, title & interest in some of the shops out of total 18 shops, though not on the date of the passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, F.I. has also admittedly earlier in year 2011 itself shops were existing therein and the same were though disposed off illegally after creating equitably mortgage. Though the Ld. Recovery Officer failed to mention the said fact in proclamation notice as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in WP No.968/2008 titled as *Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority Vs. State of Punjab and another* dated 13.02.2013, which were issued to official liquidator appointed by the Hon'ble Company Court to apply for compounding of unauthorized construction to the extent it is permissible under the rules & in case the same uncompoundable, the official liquidator was required to mention in the sale notice that the prospective vendee shall remove unauthorized construction. It is also settled the principle of law that buyer must beware. In the present matter, the shops are there existing at the spot, therefore, the presumption is that the auction purchaser participated knowingly that the property in question was having 18 shops though the said fact is not mentioned in the sale proclamation. In this context it is worthwhile to mention that on behalf of Surinder Singh (claiming right in shop no. 6 to 9), Kuldeep Kaur (claiming right in shop no. 13 to 15), and Harinder Singh (claiming right in shop no. 16 to 18) the objection before the Ld. Recovery officer separately filed on 27.02.2019, who also placed on record the copies of orders dated 22.11.2004 & 12.09.2006 passed by Ld. Revisional Authority i.e. Secretary of Punjab, Deptt. Of Urban Development, Chandigarh whereby, Chief Administrator PUDA, Mohali was directed to determine the compensation/composition amount.

16. Subsequently, the said order was challenged by PUDA before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh vide WP No.968/2008, wherein the order was passed dated 13.02.2013. Therefore, the Ld. Recovery Officer in the light of 29/11/

the said order dated 13.02.2013, passed in WP No.968/2008 titled as *Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority Vs. State of Punjab and another*, before proceeding to auction the property, was required to approached to PUDA for composition of fees for authorization construction and in case the same is not able to be compoundable, then he was supposed to issue the sales certificate with a stipulation that the prospective vendee shall remove the unauthorized construction. Apparently, in the present matter the Ld. Recovery Officer overlooked the factum of existence of 18 shops and the earlier proclamation of sale issued by his predecessors in year 2011, wherein the property was put on auction excluding 18 shops and the remaining area was mentioned as 11,705 sq. yards. Thus, neither the sale proclamation nor confirmation of sale nor sale certificate of Ld. Recovery Officer are in the teeth of the respective orders Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in No.968/2008 titled as *Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority Vs. State of Punjab and another*. Further as apparent from dated 31.10.2011 of Ld. Recovery Officer passed in RC No.116/2010 wherein bid was to be confirmed with the prior permission of Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, which is not apparently sought by Ld. Recovery officer. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.02.2019, it is apparent that Ld. Recovery Officer merely directed the CHFI, OL & auction purchaser to maintain status quo of the property and by passing the said impugned order, no apparent illegality or irregularity is committed.

17. Resultantly, finding no merits in the present appeal, the same stand dismissed without no orders to costs.

18. A copy of this order be also sent to the Ld. Recovery Officer.

File be consigned to records.

(DHARMINDER SINGH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, DELHI

(Pronounced in open court)

Dated: 29.11.2019

AB