- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 19002 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI. K.R. RAJESHA S/O RAVINDRA NAIDU @ R K NAIDU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.24A, 52/1, 59TH CROSS 4TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE - 560 020 2. SRI SRINIVAS S S/O SRI SHIVARAM MAJOR R./AT NO.17, SINCHANA NILAYA 1ST MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS LAKKANNA LAYOUT MARIYAPPANA PALYA BENGALURU - 560 056 3. THE MANAGER CANARA BANK J P NAGAR 2ND PHASE BRANCH Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 J P NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 078 4. THE ASSISTANT RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH-I CANARA BANK SPENCER'S TOWER-86 M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO STOP RECOVERY OF PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PREMISES WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF LOAN AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE R2 BY VIRTUE OF ORDER PASSED IN DRC NO.352/2019 IN O.A.NO.1003/2018 DATED 07.09.2022 BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT BANGALORE WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “The petitioner prays this Hon’ble Court be pleased to; a) To stop recovery of physical possession of the schedule premises which is subject matter of loan amount received by the 2nd respondent by virtue of order passed in DRC No.352/2019 in O.A.No.1003/2018 dated 07.09.2022 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II at Bangalore, which is produced at Annexure-N. b) Direct the 3rd and 4th respondent to recover the loan amount by getting other properties belongs to the 2nd respondent who is principal borrower and stop all further proceedings in respect of the schedule property which is acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority. c) To call for records and grant such other relief/s deems fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the land measuring to an extent of 5 acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.38/2 which belongs to one Smt.Chikkamma was acquired by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 Bangalore Development Aauthority. Thereafter, subsequent sales have taken place in respect of the said property. The 2nd respondent purchased this property under registered Sale Deed dated 16.08.2013 from his vendor. The 2nd respondent put up the construction of cellar floor and first floor and let out the building to various tenants. The 2nd respondent availed the loan from the 3rd respondent-Bank for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and he had executed a registered Memorandum of Deposit of Titles on 03.08.2015 in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is surprised that, while looking after the title to the property, Bank had not verified about the fact that land is acquired by the 1st respondent and Final Notification has been issued on 19.01.1994 and was published in Karnataka Gazette on 03.03.1994. This fact is suppressed and the loan was granted in respect of acquired property. It is stated that, the 2nd respondent is not ready and willing to pay the installments towards loan availed by him. The account was declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and notice was issued to the 2nd respondent on 04.02.2019. Inspite of the same, the 2nd respondent has not come forward to pay the amount, hence, the Symbolic Possession Notice has been issued under Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 13(4) of SARFAESI Act on 10.06.2019. Inspite of that no amount is paid and then an order was passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act on 01.04.2019. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is a tenant of the ground floor premises and taken possession under lease agreement dated 18.03.2015 for a period of 11 months, deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as security deposit. The renewal agreement has been made on 16.12.2017. It is the case that, he has made huge investment in the premises for running a liquor retail shop with CL2 license and the 3rd and 4th respondent bank authorities trying to forcibly evict the petitioner from the premises. He invested more than Rs.50 lakhs for the cold storage. 4. It is further stated that, as the respondent failed to pay the loan amount, the property has been brought for auction and sale notice issued on 10.06.2019 and fix the date for auction sale on 27.02.2019 and he is the successful bidder of the property for a sum of Rs.1,43,00,001/-. He had deposited 25% of the EMD amount and the bank had called upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount. The petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 also want to mortgage the property, as this property was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority, he is not in a position to mortgage the property. 5. The Bank had initiated the proceedings by filing O.A No.1003/2018 before Debt Recovery Tribunal to recover the loan amount and in that another application has been filed by the petitioner in TRC No.352/2019 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the order has been passed directing the petitioner to deposit the rent before the Tribunal payable to the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, more than Rs.17 lakhs has been deposited before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 6. During the pendency of the proceeding, the power has been disconnected and it is also case of the petitioner that he has been depositing the amount before the DRT. It is also been alleged that, his signature has been forged and an application has been filed to implead him as a party to the proceeding in O.S No.1003/2018. He also stated that after taking physical possession of the property an order was passed on 07.09.2022. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 7. It is further stated that, the petitioner has offered one time settlement of loan amount on behalf of the 2nd respondent but the 3rd and 4th respondents are not ready and willing to accept the offer made by the petitioner. The property belongs to the 1st respondent/BDA, the Canara Bank authorities have no authority to take possession of the property, hence the petitioner has come before this Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is a tenant, he had participated in the auction and become the successful bidder. He had already paid the EMI amount. The property is acquired by the BDA and when the BDA has acquired the property, how the bank has granted loan is not known. He is a tenant and in possession of the property as such his possession shall be protected. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the bank submits that property is mortgaged to the bank and the petitioner has no registered lease deed. The lease deed does not contain what is the duration and no particulars are stated. Infact, the property is mortgaged to the bank on 03.08.2015. Already an order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act is passed in favour of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 the Bank. The writ petition as filed before this Court is not maintainable. If at all petitioner is entitled for any relief, he should approach the DRT, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank submits that, as submitted by the petitioner about the auction, he has no instructions. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA submits that they have acquired the land for formation of a residential layout in the year 1994. It is submitted that the construction is unauthorised construction. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, perused the entire material on record. The interim prayer that is sought is to stop recovery of physical possession of the schedule premises which is subject matter of the loan amount. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.09.2022 had granted stay as prayed for till the next date of hearing. The matter has not come up from that day. The bank has filed the vacate petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 12. Petitioner is a tenant and according to him, the property has been acquired by the BDA long back and without any manner of right or authority the bank is proceeding under the SARFAESI Act. According to BDA, it is a unauthorised construction. The Bank initiated the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The matter is pending before the DRT. It is the case of the petitioner that he is ready to settle the entire amount under one time settlement. At one breath, he says that he is ready to settle the amount and on the other, it is stated that the bank has no authority. If the Bank has no right over the property why he is coming forward to pay the amount is not known. It appears that as the petitioner is running a bar, the petitioner wants to retain the property and in that process, the writ petition is filed. Looking at the prayer that is sought, this Court cannot grant any prayer as sought by the petitioner. According to BDA, if it is their property, it is for the BDA to take appropriate steps and now, the bank has initiated the proceedings under SARFAESI Act. BDA can as well, contest before the Tribunal. If the petitioner feels that he has a enforceable legal right, he can as well contest the same before the DRT. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1237 WP No. 19002 of 2022 13. The petitioner cannot approach this Court with the prayer as sought for before this Court and his remedy is else where. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. (ii) For a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the bank shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner. (iii) All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11