191090001642020_9585a9dce5fff9b02ee96dda117c4dec.pdf

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA 
Dated this the 22nd day of February 2021 
PRESENT: Dr. T. RAVI SHANKAR, HON’BLE CHAIRPERSON 
Appeal No. 3 of 2021(Diary No. 164 of 2020) 
(Arising out of Recovery Appeal No. 5 of 2019, M.P No.207/2019, R.P No. 197/2002, 
in O.A No. 1785 of 1999 on the file of DRT-I, Hyderabad) 
 
.  
 
M/s. Laxmi Ganapathi Paper Mills Ltd 
…….  
 
Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
. 
-Versus- 
 
Canara Bank. 
..........  
 
 
 
Respondent.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel for the Appellant:                        Mr..Sarathi Dasgupta for Mr.Dipendra Nath 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chunder 
Counsel for Respondent:                     Ms. Aparajita Ghose 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This appeal impugns the order of the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1, 
Hyderabad passed in Appeal No.5of 2019. 
 
The facts of this case may be stated in brief, as follows: - 
 
The appellant was the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the 
learned Recovery Officer, DRT, Hyderabad, who sold an extent of Acre 1.35 Guntas 
in Survey No. 90/2 in GachiBowli in Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, pursuant to 
the Recovery Certificate in RP No.197/2002. After the auction was over the 
Recovery Officer, on the request of the appellant included the names of three others 
also who neither took part in the bidding nor were represented by the appellant who 
bid singly for himself in the auction and issued the order of confirmation in favour 

[2] 
 
four persons wherein the appellant was one amongst the four. Thereafter, the sale 
certificate was issued in favour of four persons dividing the entire extent of land into 
7 schedules with different boundaries being 1A,1B,1C.,2A,2B,3 and 4.as stated 
above.  
 
Later, when the appellant submitted a building plan to the Greater Hyderabad 
Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for approval it was pointed out by GHMC that the 
road on the western boundary is only 80 ft. and also further that the road on the 
southern side of the property is 30 ft.  
 
In view of the above, the appellant filed M.P No. 207 of 2019 before the 
learned Recovery Officer DRT1 Hyderabad requesting for the issuance of a 
rectification deed and the request of the appellant was negative by the Ld. Recovery 
Officer on the ground that the Recovery Officer had no power to issue the 
rectification of deed as prayed for by the appellant. 
 
Being aggrieved by the same the appellant preferred an appeal before the 
learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Hyderabad and the learned Presiding Officer also 
passed orders dismissing the appeal.  
 
It is stated by the appellant that certain mistakes had crept in the 
measurements at that point of time when the Sale Certificate was issued. The case 
of the Respondent Bank is that the property had been sold with the measurements 
found in the documents which were mortgaged with the Respondent Bank. The 
Records of the Department of Survey and Land Records reveal that the length 
abutting the road on the western side is 444 ft. and that the width of the road on the 
western side is 80 ft. The Respondent Bank has stated that the measurements as 
presently stated by the appellant are in accordance with the Government Records 

[3] 
 
and that the bank has no objection for the issuance of the Rectification deed and that 
same may be issued as prayed for by the appellant. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant took this Tribunal through the sketch of the 
land and explained that the rectification deed is required to be executed as per the 
Records of the Government. Learned counsel for the Bank stated that the orders 
may be passed by this Tribunal as per Government Records in this appeal. 
          A report regarding the auction was called for from DRT1 Hyderabad to 
ascertain the details. It was submitted by the Ld. Recovery officer and the same was 
perused. The said report reveals that the 3 persons who had not participated in the 
bidding process either jointly or individually or represented by the appellant 

…