1 CGHC010294422026 2026:CGHC:32440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3988 of 2026 1 - Shri Jitendra Kumar S/o Nandu Prajapati Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Silidag, P.S.- Ramna, Garhwa, Pincode- 822128, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Manager Bank Of India, Raipur Zonal Office, Star House, Sector- 24, Plot No. 48, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mrs. Shivkali Sahu W/o Late Mr. Netram Sahu R/o Ward No. 27, Manohar Hotel, Pachrighat, Juna Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to immediately cancel the sale by E-Auction dated 28-07- 2026 of the property in dispute which is an immovable RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 property belonging to the petitioner and situated at Khasra No. 27/19/kh, Sheet No. 15, Block No.8, Bhukhand No. 121/A, Patwari Halka No. 22/34, Mauza Juna Bilaspur, Basant Bhai Patel Ward No. 28, Madhuban Para, tehsil and District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (ANNEXURE P-1). 10.2 This Hon'ble Court be further please to pass an order to save all the rights of the petitioner as an owner over the disputed property mentioned above as the same has been acquired in good faith as a bonafide purchaser by the petitioner and as the same is currently registered in his name and ownership therefore the Respondent No.1 has no right to keep it under any kind of mortgage or charge. 10.3 This Hon'ble High Court be further please to pass any appropriate order of criminal action against the respondent No.2 for having deceived the Respondent. No1 and the Petitioner herein. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders in favour of the petitioner against the respondents as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.5 Costs of the petition may be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, having purchased the property in dispute through a duly registered sale deed dated 19.01.2024 after conducting all necessary due diligence and 3 satisfying himself that the property was free from any mortgage, charge, encumbrance or third-party claim. It is submitted that, pursuant to the publication inviting objections, no objection was received from any quarter and, consequently, the property was duly mutated in the petitioner's name. It is further submitted that Canara Bank, while sanctioning a housing loan in favour of the petitioner, had also obtained an advocate's title verification report certifying that the property was free from any encumbrance, thereby affirming the petitioner's valid title. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the property, which is duly reflected from the demarcation report dated 26.03.2025. It is contended that the petitioner was taken by complete surprise upon publication of the e-auction notice dated 17.06.2026 issued under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, despite there being no indication of any mortgage either in the revenue records or in the records maintained by CERSAI. It is further submitted that, although the petitioner immediately issued a legal notice requesting the respondent-Bank to desist from proceeding with the proposed auction, no response has been furnished. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner, being a bona fide purchaser with a valid title and lawful possession over the property, cannot be deprived of his valuable rights for recovery of the alleged dues payable by respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the proposed e- auction proceedings deserve to be quashed. 4 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the action initiated by the Bank has been taken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 5. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present case is substantially similar to the issues which have already been considered by this Court in a batch of petitions involving identical questions of fact and law, wherein the petitioners were relegated to avail the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad. Since an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the statute, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should also be relegated to the said statutory forum for redressal of his grievance. 6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate Securitisation Application (S.A.) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad, in accordance with law, within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt 5 of a certified copy of this order. It is directed that, for the aforesaid period of ten (10) days, the respondent-Bank shall not take any coercive steps or proceed further with the auction of the property in question. This direction is being issued in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that, as on 4:26 p.m. today, no bid has been received in the auction proceedings and that the Bank would, in all likelihood, be required to issue a fresh auction notice before proceeding further. Thereafter, it shall be open to the parties to act in accordance with law and to abide by such orders as may be passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat