Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010147002025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3978/2025 JAYNAB NESSA D/O LATE MONSER ALI, VILL- GELABEEL, P.O.- GUMAFULBARI, P.S.- TARABARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.S. AND DIST- BARPETA PIN-781301 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICE CHENGA REVENUE CIRCLE P.S.- CHENGA PIN-781305 4:ICICI BANK ZONAL OFFICE OHIO SHOPPING COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR MG ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI PIN-781001 5:THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK BARPETA BRANCH P.O. AND P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM PIN-781301 6:JAFAR MALLIK S/O LATE MAFIZUDDIN MALLIK R/O GELABEEL P.O.- GUMAFULBARI P.S.- TARABARI DIST- BARPETA ASSA For the petitioner : Mr. A.R. Sikdar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. J. Handique, S.C. Revenue For respondent No.1 Mr. R.K. Borah, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam For respondent Nos.2 & 3 Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate For the respondent Nos.4 & 5 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 06-08-2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) This writ petition has been filed seeking intervention of this Court against the action of respondent No.5 in taking the symbolic possession of the house of the writ petitioner in an unauthorised manner. The records reveal that the son of the petitioner had taken a loan after mortgaging his share of the property. It appears that the loan was not repaid and pursuant to a proceeding initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, symbolic possession of the house of the petitioner was Page No.# 3/3 taken. Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5/Bank has, at the outset, very fairly submitted that such symbolic possession of the house of the petitioner was taken because of some confusion as the house in question stands in close proximity to the land which has been mortgaged. After the loan account was declared as NPA, possession notice was given. However, the symbolic possession of the house of the petitioner was taken on account of such confusion. Noticing this error, the respondent No.5 has removed the affixation of symbolic possession from the house of the petitioner. He has further submitted that necessary corrective steps shall be taken shortly. Based on the above undertaking of Mr. Sarma, we dispose off this writ petition with a direction that due process shall be followed by the respondent No.5 for securing the loan granted to the son of the petitioner, who has an independent identity and who holds land exclusively, which only had been mortgaged with the Bank. We order accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed off. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant