2026:UHC:3772 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1351 of 2025 15 May, 2026 Shashi Pal Singh --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. D.P. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.4-S.B.I. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the learned Assistant Collector Second Class/Tehsildar, Ramnagar, District Nainital (Respondent no.3) to allow the mutation proceedings in Case No.30/2009 year 2021-2022 after the respondent no.4 accepts the loan amount of Rs.4,68,000/- from the petitioner in one month and release the mortgage of property in dispute. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 accepts the loan amount of Rs.4,68,000/- from the petitioner in one month and release the mortgage of property in dispute. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner and to accept the aforesaid loan amount in one month as will be fixed by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claims to have purchased certain land situated at Village Kyari Kham, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Nainital from respondent no.5 by means of a registered sale deed dated 2026:UHC:3772 2 22.10.2021. The property comprises portions of Khasra No.10, Khata No.11, total measuring about 0.127 hectare. According to the petitioner, prior to execution of the sale deed, a report dated 22.10.2021 submitted by the concerned Lekhpal before respondent no.3 indicated that the property was not mortgaged with any bank or financial institution. Relying upon the said report, the petitioner purchased the property from respondent no.5. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for mutation, which was registered as Mutation Case No.30/229 of 2021-2022 pending before the Assistant Collector Second Class/Tehsildar, Ramnagar. During the mutation proceedings, respondent no.4-State Bank of India submitted objections stating that respondent no.5 had already mortgaged the property with the Bank and had availed loan facilities thereagainst prior to execution of the sale deed. The petitioner alleges that the factum of mortgage was never disclosed by respondent no.5 and that he was a bona fide purchaser of the property on the basis of the Lekhpal’s report. The petitioner claims willingness to deposit/pay an amount of Rs.4,68,000/-to the respondent Bank and seeks release of the mortgage so that mutation proceedings may be finalized in his favour. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question, having purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2021 executed by respondent no.5. It is submitted that prior to execution of the sale deed, a report was obtained from the concerned Lekhpal, wherein it was specifically stated that the property was not mortgaged with any bank or financial 2026:UHC:3772 3 institution. Relying upon the said report, the petitioner proceeded with the transaction and, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that only during pendency of the mutation proceedings did the petitioner come to know that respondent no.5 had already mortgaged the property with respondent no.4-Bank and had availed loan facilities thereagainst. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner himself has not committed any fraud and rather has been deceived by respondent no.5, who deliberately concealed the factum of mortgage at the time of sale. It is argued that the petitioner had purchased the property after due verification from the revenue authorities and, therefore, deserves equitable protection. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit/pay the outstanding amount of Rs.4,68,000/- to respondent no.4-Bank and, therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to release the mortgage over the property and conclude the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that unless protection is granted by this Court, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury for no fault attributable to him. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the property was purchased in spite of the fact that it was mortgaged by the bank in lieu of a loan. Therefore, as the purchase was not bona fide, no relief can be availed by the petitioner. 7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. From the record, it is 2026:UHC:3772 4 apparent that prior to execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the property in question was already stood mortgaged with respondent no.4-Bank and loan facilities had been availed by respondent no.5 against the said property. The objection submitted by the respondent Bank in the mutation proceedings clearly discloses existence of the mortgage and outstanding dues against the property. Mere execution of a subsequent sale deed in favour of the petitioner cannot defeat or extinguish the rights of the secured creditor arising from a prior mortgage. 8. The principal relief sought by the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to accept an amount of Rs.4,68,000/- from the petitioner and release the mortgage over the property in dispute. However, no statutory or legal right has been shown vested in the petitioner to compel the Bank, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to accept any particular amount towards settlement of loan dues or to release the secured asset in a particular manner. Matters relating to settlement of loan accounts, determination of outstanding liability and release of mortgage fall within the contractual and statutory domain of the secured creditor and no such direction, as prayed for, can ordinarily be issued in writ jurisdiction. 9. Furthermore, there is a direct statutory bar provided under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act which prohibits the issuance of relief prayed for by the petitioner. The relevant portion of Section 60 of the Act states that: “...Nothing in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to 2026:UHC:3772 5 redeem his own share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except only where a mortgagee, or, if there are more mortgagees than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired, in whole or in part, the share of a mortgagor.” 10. So far as the plea of the petitioner that he is a bona fide purchaser on the basis of the Lekhpal report is concerned, the same also does not advance the case of the petitioner in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Whether the petitioner was misled by respondent no.5 or whether any fraud or concealment was committed are disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication on evidence and cannot appropriately be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view thereof, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 15.05.2026 AK