M/s Kishan Agro Agency vs The Punjab National Bank
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15851 of 2023
CNR No. BRHC010988032023
======================================================
M/s Kishan Agro Agency under proprietorship of Ajay Kumar Singh,S/O
Lakshmi Narayan Singh At and P.O. Daulatpur, P.S.-Teghra, District-
Begusarai. Presently residing at C/o Shambhu Prasad, Mohalla- Rajeev
Nagar, near Chhoti Shiv Mandir, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Punjab National Bank through its General Manager having its Office
Chanakya Palace, R Block, Patna.
2. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank having its office Chanakya
Palace, Patna.
3. The Authorised Officer-Cum-Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Recovery Department, Circle Office, Darbhanga.
4. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Khagariya Branch District and
Town- Khagariya.
5. The Officer (Loan) Punjab National Bank, Khagariya Branch, District and
Town- Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-10-2026
1 . The Writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
That this is an application for a
writ in the nature of mandamus or any
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions to the Respondents.
the Bank authority to treat with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15851 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
2/6
petitioner's land bearing Khata No.118,
Khesra No. 109, Area- 4-1/2 Katha
situated at Mauza Bhagawara under the
district -Begusarai, because the
petitioner approached the P.N.Bank for
cash credit loan facility of Rs. 15 lakh
created Equitable Mortgage of the land
showing the deeds available but at the
time of verification of the land, the
authorised lawyer of Punjab National
Bank wrongly verified the other plot in
question, bearing deed No.5991 dated
29.06.2009 having Khata -282, Plot-
1355, area-5 K. in place of land details
in deed No.9201 dated 28.06.2010
having Khata no.118, Plot-109, area 4-
1/2 K. resulted the SARFAESI action
against the deed holder who after
purchasing the deed in disputed came in
peaceful possession and mutation is
also in favour of deed holder in rightful
act.
AND
Further for issuance a writ/order
direction to the Bank respondents to not
proceed with the any action because the
petitioner is ready to resolve the dispute
arise by way of settlement after
payment of the same, which has been in
Patna High Court CWJC No.15851 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
3/6
confusion because the land in dispute
and the prayed creation of deed and is
sold by same person to the petitioner in
different dates.
AND
Further for issuance a writ/ order
direction to the Respondents-Bank to
stay, if any proceeding of land in dispute
assessing and mortgage wrongly as
Khata No.262, Khesra No.1355, area 5
katha because the said land was also
the land of petitioner, but the same has
been earlier transferred to one Dezi
Kumari by a sale deed and the Dezi
Kumari also sold the land by a
registered sale deed to one Ashok
Kumar Sinha, who after mutated the
same is in peaceful possession of
mortgage to the Bank on wrong advice
of authorised lawyer of the Bank,
AND
Further for other relief/reliefs to
which the petitioner may be found
deemed fit and just which sustainable in
law.
AND
Further issuance a direction to
treat the deed No.9201 dated 28.-
06.2010 (Khata-118, Plot-109, area -4-
Patna High Court CWJC No.15851 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
4/6
1/2 K.) in place of deed No.5991 dated
29.06.2009 (Khata -262, Plot -1355,
area-5 K.) because petitioner is ready to
resolve the dispute by way of settlement
after payment of borrowed amount.
2 . Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondent.
3 . The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ,
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , held as follows:
The High Court overlooked
the settled law that the High Court
will ordinarily not entertain a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution
if an effective remedy is available to
the aggrieved person and that this
rule applies with greater rigour in
matters involving recovery of taxes,
cess, fees, other types of public
money and the dues of banks and
other financial institutions. While
dealing with the petitions involving
challenge to the action taken for
recovery of the public dues, etc. the
High Court must keep in mind that
Patna High Court CWJC No.15851 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
5/6
the legislations enacted by
Parliament and State Legislatures for
recovery of such dues are a code
unto themselves inasmuch as they
not only contain comprehensive
procedure for recovery of the dues
but also envisage constitution of
quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of
the grievance of any aggrieved
person. Therefore, in all such cases,
the High Court must insist that before
availing remedy under Article 226 of
the Constitution, a person must
exhaust the remedies available under
the relevant statute.
4 . In case of Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors
(Mumbai) (P) Ltd. , reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1 ,
the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-
97. This court has time and
again, reminded the high courts that
they should not entertain petition
under article 226 of the constitution if
an effective remedy is available to
the aggrieved person under the
provisions of the SARFAESI ACT.
5 . In case of PHR Invent Educational
Society Vs UCO Bank & Ors reported in 2024
Patna High Court CWJC No.15851 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
6/6
Insc 297, the same principles have been reiterated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6 . Therefore, this Court is of the
considerable view that the Writ petition is not
maintainable when an alternative and effective
remedy is available to the petitioner. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate
forum for availing his remedy, and the concerned
authority shall also consider the aspect of limitation.
7 . At this juncture, the Learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that he would approach the
bank to settle the loan account. The petitioner is
always at liberty to approach the bank authorities
and there is no necessity to avail permission for it.
8 . With the aforesaid observations, the Writ
petition stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
manishkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 28.10.2026
Transmission Date