p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10831 of 2025 Mohammed Gafur …. Petitioner Mr. Anupam Rath, Advocate -versus- Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Sambalpur and another …. Opp. Parties CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 25.06.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 01.05.2025, which is available in the file, wherein it is stated as follows: “The impugned order/letter dated 30.01.2025 has not been, inadvertently, annexed to the writ petition although the same has been mentioned to have been annexed as Annexure-4 (series). Hence, in view of the inadvertent mistake the letter dated 30.01.2025 be kept on record through this memo”. The memo with the impugned order/letter dated 30.01.2025 is taken on record. Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 26-Jun-2025 13:41:12 Signature Not Verified p. 2 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Mohammed Gafur, challenging the order dated 30.01.2025 under Annexure-4 series issued by the opp. party no.1 with a further direction to the Bank to refund the deposit amount of Rs.22,43,000/- (rupees twenty two lakhs forty three thousand) pursuant to the auction along with interest at par with fixed deposit. In the impugned letter dated 30.01.2025, it is stated by the Bank that since the petitioner has failed to deposit the total auction amount, under the powers & proceeding conferred by SARFAESI Act, the petitioner forfeited the partial deposited amount of Rs.16,23,625/-(rupees sixteen lakhs twenty three thousand six hundred twenty five). It further appears from the said letter that after perusal of relevant documents as prescribed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the District Magistrate has passed order on 09.02.2024 for handing over the physical possession of the property to the Authorized Officer of the Bank. The grounds taken by the petitioner by filing the representation under Annexure-4 series before the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda through the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda are that he heard from local sources that the land is a locked property and that he had given written application for p. 3 demarcation and that the land was demarcated by the local Revenue Inspector and it was found that the property was land locked. It is further stated that road shown by the Bank connecting to the property is missing and there is no access to the property and that the bank had mislead him regarding the sale of the property with ill intention, for which he has requested the Bank to refund the sum of Rs.30,00,000/-(rupees thirty lakhs) i.e. Rs.22,43,000/- + interest + losses and compensation. After going through the pleadings, documents filed and carefully considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the humble view that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case, which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record. Whether there was in fact no access to the property, whether the report of the R.I. after demarcation that property was land locked is to be accepted or not, whether the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him with interest and compensation and whether the forfeiture of the deposited amount of the petitioner by bank was justified can be adjudicated by appropriate Court on the basis of the evidence, which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted Civil Suit rather than p. 4 by this Court in the writ petition. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy available under the law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Judge I.A. No.6299 of 2025 02. In view of the order passed today in W.P.(C) No.10831 of 2025, the I.A. also stands disposed of. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Judge Rajesh