ORDER : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krushita Dave for the respondent No.2. 2. This Court passed the following order on 06.01.2021 : “1. Heard Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Dharmik R. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate for respondent No.1 on caveat, Mr. Ronak Raval, learned AGP and Mr. Tarak Damani, learned advocate for respondent No.3. 2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Sanjanwala mainly contended that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the land in respect of nonagricultural land of Plot No.F/322 admeasuring 3493.77 sq.mtrs. along with construction thereon of approximate 3022 sq.mtrs. developed on joint Block No.1150 of Mouje Andhel, Sub-District Gandevi, District Navsari. It is submitted that the petitioners purchased the subject land by registered sale deed dated 23.3.2018 which is duly registered. Learned senior advocate has referred the copy of the sale deed and pointed out that the petitioners have purchased the property in question after making full and final consideration price of Rs.4.30 crore. It is also contended that the original developers mortgaged the subject land along with other parcels of land total admeasuring 1,08,609 sq.mtrs. of Block No.1150 as well as admeasuring 91,713 sq.mtrs. of Block No.1150 paiki. The developer formed the society by name of Mangonise Villa i.e. Mohanbaugh and started selling and developing the said plots through their own private limited company. It is submitted that the petitioners are plot owners and not borrowers and in fact respondent No.1 bank has granted No Objection Certificates to the concerned other plot owners. Learned senior advocate has also referred such No Objection Certificates which are produced on record at pages 112 to 146 of the compilation. Thus, it is contended that respondent No.1 bank was aware about the fact that the original borrowers / developers had, after developing the various parcels of land including the land in question, sold the plots to the concerned purchasers and therefore, the respondent bank has given No Objection Certificates. However, it is alleged that so far as the larger plots including the land of the petitioners in question are concerned, No Objection Certificate is not given. 3. However, it is alleged that so far as the larger plots including the land of the petitioners in question are concerned, No Objection Certificate is not given. 3. At this stage, learned senior advocate referred the document produced at page 147 of the compilation, i.e. letter dated 25.8.2018 written by the developer / borrower to the Manager of the respondent bank. It was requested that on receipt of Rs.1.25 crore from the petitioners, No Objection Certificate be given to the petitioners for Plot No.322. At this stage, learned senior advocate has also referred the document produced at page 150, i.e. endorsement dated 25.9.2018 made by the bank, wherein it is stated that the amount deposited towards availment of No Objection Certificate for the club house will be deposited on date of the cheque. It is submitted that the cheques were deposited after the receipt of Rs.1.25 crore for the club house (Plot No.F/322). In spite of the receipt of the aforesaid amount, No Objection Certificate has not been issued by the respondent bank and thereafter the account of the borrowers / developer became NPA on 30.11.2018. It is submitted that in fact, the cheques were given in September 2018, i.e. prior to the account of the borrower has become NPA. 4. Learned senior advocate further contended that the respondent bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and thereafter for taking symbolic possession, notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also issued to the concerned borrower. Thereafter the proceeding under Section 14 of the Act was also initiated and the District Magistrate passed the impugned order while exercising powers under Section 14 of the Act on 8.12.2020, by which the respondent bank was permitted to take over the possession of the parcels of land mentioned in the said order including the disputed land. 5. It is contended that before respondent No.2 District Magistrate, the application was submitted by the present petitioners for joining them as party respondents, however, without deciding the said application, the impugned order has been passed. It is also pointed out from the record that from pages 264 of the compilation, the written submissions were filed by the respondent bank before respondent No.2, however, copy thereof was not supplied to the petitioners. It is also pointed out from the record that from pages 264 of the compilation, the written submissions were filed by the respondent bank before respondent No.2, however, copy thereof was not supplied to the petitioners. It is contended that by not providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners, the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2 and therefore, the present petition has been filed. It is also contended that respondent No.1 has not raised any dispute with regard to the receipt of Rs.1.25 crore from the present petitioners. Thus, though the said amount was paid in September 2018, now respondent No.1 bank wants to take over the possession of the land in question and therefore, looking to the conduct of the respondent bank also, this Court may grant protection to the petitioners. 6. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned senior advocate has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 620 and more particularly in paras 5 and 21 to 26 of the said judgment. It is, therefore, urged that the issue involved in the present petition requires consideration and therefore, till the said petition is decided, protection be granted. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Riturraj Meena, learned advocate appearing for the respondent bank on caveat, has referred the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent bank and at the outset, submitted that the respondent bank is ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.1.25 crore to the petitioners after the auction is held. It is also contended that the petitioners are not the borrowers. Learned advocate has referred the mortgage deed and thereafter submitted that without knowledge of the bank, the concerned borrowers / developers sold the land in question to the petitioners by executing sale deed. Learned advocate has also referred the communication dated 7.1.2019, in which the concerned borrower / developer has requested the respondent bank not to issue No Objection Certificate. It is contended that the petitioners have not joined the concerned developer / borrower as party respondent in the present proceedings. It is also contended that the petitioners have not filed any FIR against the borrower / developer nor any civil suit is filed before the Civil Court or before Real Estate Regulatory Authority. 8. It is contended that the petitioners have not joined the concerned developer / borrower as party respondent in the present proceedings. It is also contended that the petitioners have not filed any FIR against the borrower / developer nor any civil suit is filed before the Civil Court or before Real Estate Regulatory Authority. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no locus to file the present petition as the agreement entered into between the respondent bank and the concerned borrowers. Learned advocate would further submit that against the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioners can file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. In support of the said contention, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 782 and more particularly in para 20 of the said decision. 9. Mr. Meena, learned advocate would further submit that the petitioners seek to enforce their civil rights, for which the mandamus cannot be issued and there are certain disputed questions of fact raised in the present petition and therefore, this petition may not be entertained. 10. From the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, it would prima facie emerge that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the land in question. The registered sale deed is placed on record. From the said sale deed, it is revealed that the petitioners have paid Rs.4.30 crore to the concerned developer / original borrowers. It is also not in dispute that the respondent bank has issued No Objection Certificates to various plot holders. Copies of the said No Objection Certificates are placed at pages 112 to 146 of the compilation. Thus, prima facie it can be said that the respondent bank was aware about the fact that after taking the loan by the concerned developer / borrower for the development of the various parcels of land, the plots are sold to various persons by the developer and after receipt of the amount of consideration from the concerned plot holders, the developer / borrower had paid the necessary amount to the respondent bank and therefore, the respondent bank had issued No Objection Certificates to the concerned plot holders. It is also revealed from the record that initially, the borrower / developer had requested the respondent bank to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioners on receipt of Rs.1.25 crore and there is an endorsement made by the concerned officer of the respondent bank that the cheques issued by the petitioners would be deposited towards availment of No Objection Certificate for the club house on due date. It is also not in dispute that the respondent bank has received Rs.1.25 crore from the petitioners. 11. Prima facie it would also emerge from the record that the petitioners have submitted an application for joining them as party in the proceedings filed by respondent bank, however, without considering the submissions canvassed by the petitioners and without joining them as party respondents, the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2. 12. Thus, this Court is of the view that the issue involved in the present petition requires consideration and till the petition is decided finally, protection is required to be granted to the petitioners. 13. Hence, Notice returnable on 23.2.2021. 14. Interim relief in terms of para 9(D) and (E).” 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani for the petitioners, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw this petition so as to enable the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 4. It was further prayed that the interim-relief granted by this Court by the aforesaid order may continue for some time. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Meena who appears for the respondent-Bank on caveat has opposed the continuation of the interim-relief in view of the fact that the petitioners have sought permission to withdraw this petition. 6. When this Court has already granted an interim protection to the petitioners in the month of January, 2021 which has been in operation since more than two years, it would be in the interest of justice to continue the interim-relief granted by this Court for a further period of two months. 7. Without entering into the merits of the matter, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate Forum in accordance with law. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim-relief granted by this Court as per the aforesaid order shall continue to operate up to 31st March, 2023.