Bank Of Baroda v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

CWP-27995-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (103) CWP-27995-2024 Date of decision:- 19.11.2024 Bank of Baroda

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. C.S.Pasricha, Advocate, with Mr. Sushil K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ...

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral) 1.

Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3, to note down the lien over the properties, mortgaged in favour of the petitioner-Bank, in the revenue records, in respect of loans sanctioned to the various borrowers. 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of banking operations, petitioner-Bank has sanctioned loan to the various customers, which is depicted in the list, Annexure P-1, and by communication dated 27.06.2023, Annexure P-2, addressed to the District Magistrate, District Jhajjar, requested him to note the lien over the properties in favour of the petitioner-Bank, in the PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2024.11.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-27995-2024 -2revenue records. Counsel submits that the respondent-authority is not carrying out its duty and it is insisted on the payment of registration fee, etc., which is in violation of the position, as settled by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Versus Navir Singh and another, (2014) 1 SCC 105. Counsel submits that the application, Annexure P-2, is pending with the respondents for the last almost one and a half years.

3.

Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the respondents. 4.

When the matter came up for hearing on 18.10.2024, it was adjourned on the request of State counsel to enable him to get instructions. However, he has sought more time.

5.

Given the nature of order being passed, this Court does not deem it necessary to call for a response from the respondents. 6.

Noticing that application, Annexure P-2, submitted by the petitioner is pending, a direction is issued to the District Collector, Jhajjar - respondent No.2, to decide it within a period of two months, from the date of communication of this order, keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7.

Writ petition is disposed of.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 19.11.2024 Pardeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes/No PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2024.11.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.