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 Proprietor … Petitioner/Appellant(s) 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