Though the case was placed under the heading “Incomplete After Notice
Matters”, but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties made a prayer that
the special leave petition may be taken up for consideration and disposed of finally.
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
By the impugned order, the High Court has disposed of the writ petition
filed on behalf of the appellant whereby it had challenged the demand of
Rs.64,48,54,891/- raised by the Tehsildar under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act [for short, “U.P. Act”] on the sole ground that,
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act,
...2/-
2002 (for short, `SARFAESI Act'), the appellant could have availed the remedy of
appeal. The High Court directed that the appeal shall be filed within fifteen days and
that the application for interim relief, if filed, shall be disposed of within next fifteen
days. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
From a bare perusal of the records, it is evident that the recovery sought to
be made from the appellant does not fall within the SARFAESI Act. It is a plain and
simple demand created under the U.P. Act. No steps whatsoever were taken by the
concerned authority under the SARFAESI Act. This being the position, we are
clearly of the view that the High Court has disposed of the writ petition under a
misconception.
Accordingly, appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter
is remanded to the High Court to dispose of the writ petition on merit after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, July 21, 2008.