loader image

After Taking ₹31.65 Lakhs on a ₹2.8 Lakh Loan, Assam Financial Corporation Cannot Hold Property Papers: Gauhati HC

After Taking ₹31.65 Lakhs on a ₹2.8 Lakh Loan, Assam Financial Corporation Cannot Hold Property Papers: Gauhati HC

Ranjit Kumar Sarmah v. The Principal Secretary of Assam, WP(C)/4341/2025 [Order dated September 07, 2026]
Gauhati HC on Assam Financial Corporation Loan Recovery

The Gauhati High Court has criticised the Assam Financial Corporation for retaining the original documents of a mortgaged property despite receiving ₹31.65 lakh towards settlement of a ₹2.8 lakh loan. Holding that the Corporation, being an state under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, had no authority to retain the documents after the loan was liquidated, Justice Devashis Baruah termed its action illegal and arbitrary and directed the Corporation to hand over the documents forthwith.

The Court observed:

 

“It is rather shocking that the Respondent Corporation which is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are resorting to such illegalities and coercion. At the cost of repetition, this Court finds it apposite to observe that against the loan amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, the Respondent Corporation at the time of settlement realized an amount of Rs.31,65,505/- which included ten times the interest to that of the loan amount. Apar from that, all other expenses were taken. Under such circumstances, the action of the Respondent Corporation not to return the documents amounts to illegal and arbitrary action.” 

The dispute arose from a 1993 loan of ₹2.8 lakh taken by the petitioner’s late father against a mortgage of his land. After his death, the petitioner sought settlement of the dues and was asked to pay ₹31.65 lakh, including interest and other expenses. He paid the entire amount within the stipulated time, but the Corporation refused to return the property documents.
The Corporation later sought an additional ₹50,000 and cited the absence of an NOC from the deceased borrower’s other legal heirs as reasons for withholding the documents. The High Court rejected these grounds, observing that the Corporation had accepted the settlement amount without insisting on such an NOC and that its subsequent conduct amounted to coercion. The court remarked: “It is shocking that while arriving at the settlement with the Petitioner and taking the money from the Petitioner, the Respondent Corporation had no problem. The said excuse of the Respondent Corporation is nothing but another way to coerce the Petitioner to cough out more amounts.”
The Court, consequently, directed the Corporation to hand over the original documents immediately upon receiving a certified copy of the order, while clarifying that their return would not affect the rights of the deceased borrower’s other legal heirs. No costs were imposed.

Appearances

For the petitioner: Mr. F. K. R. Ahmed
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Bhuyan, Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Mrs. T. Goswami and Mr. S. S., Government Advocate.

PDF Icon

Ranjit Kumar Sarmah v. The Principal Secretary of Assam

 

 

Preview PDF