--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITITION NO. 1244 / 2011 RATANLAL S/O SACHHANAND BHATIA Vs. MAHARASHTRA BRAHMAN SAHAKARI BANK & ANOTHER * * * * * O R D E R ( 3/3/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an auction notice dated 23.01.2011 as well as proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar for recovering of the outstanding amount as land revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds in the present writ petition, however, at the outset he has argued before this Court that the learned Tehsildar while passing an order in the matter of recovery of the amount in question has not followed the rules and procedure of revenue officer and revenue courts, as contained in schedule-I appended to Land Revenue Code, 1959. He has --- 2 --- categorically argued before this Court that the Tehsildar on receiving Revenue Recovery Certificate for the first time has issued notice on 25.06.09 and has passed an ex-parte order on the ground that the son of the petitioner has refused to accept the notice and the notice was later on affixed on the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the Rule 28 (11) provides for 30 days' clear notice in case the property in question is be to sold by way public auction. In the present case, a notice in respect of the property in question has been published on 23.01.2011 and the auction date has been fixed for 08.02.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised other grounds also and has also argued before this court that the auction notice issued u/S. 147 of the MP Land Revnue Code, 1959 is bad in law and no proceedings could have been initiated under the provisions of M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987. He has also argued before this Court that his objections were not --- 3 --- considered by the Tehsildar at any point of time. It has also been argued that details of the property are not in existence in the notice dt. 23/1/2011 (Annexure P/1) and therefore the notice is bad in law. It has also been argued that the second property mentioned in the notice was in the name of the father of the petitioner and it is not a property owned exclusively by the petitioner. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : 1. that the impugned sale notice placed at (Annexure P/1) which has been got published by the Tehsildar ie., the respondent No.2 be quashed. 2. that the mortgage of the property No.2 which is an agricultural land created in favour of the Bank to secure the said loan, be declared as void. 3. that the impugned RRC issued for recovery of commercial loan being contrary to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the said Adhiniyam be quashed and the relative RRC proceedings also be quashed and entertaining the same by the respondent No.2 be declared as without jurisdiction. 4. that the order dated 06/09/2010 passed in the said --- 4 --- RRC case by the respondent No.2 being not a speaking order, be quashed. 5. that the cost of this petition may also be awarded to the petitioner. 6. any other writ, direction or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in favour of the petitioners may also be issued / awarded. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has argued before this court that as per the Schedule appended to the MP Land Revenue Code, the first auction notice was issued on 4/3/10. However, objections were received in respect of the first auction notice. He has also stated that 30 days clear notice was given by the Tehsildar and the date of auction was fixed on 5/4/10. He has further informed this court that on account of objections received by the Tehsildar, the sale was adjourned and thereafter under Rule 29 of the Rules a fresh auction notice has been issued on 30/1/11 and Rule 29(2) does not provide for a limitation of 30 days as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has also argued before this court that in identical case decided by this court --- 5 --- ie., WP NO. 10086/10 Smt. Pramila Ved Vs. Maharashtra Brahman Sahakari Bank Ltd., this Court has decided a similar controversy and the action of the Tehsildar in auctioning the property of the petitioner therein was upheld. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and the matter is being disposed of at the motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties. In the present case, it is not in dispute that a Revenue Recovery Certificate was issued and proceedings under the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 were initiated and notices were issued to the person concerned. A notice was also issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner's son has refused to accept the notice and the same was affixed at the house of the petitioner as reflected from the order sheets enclosed along with the writ petition by the petitioner himself. It is an admitted fact that the first auction notice was issued on 4/3/10 and a 30 clear days notice was given in the auction notice as provided under the Rules of Revenue Officer and Revenue Courts (Schedule I) and after receiving the objections and after passing necessary orders the Tehsildar has issued a fresh notice on 30/1/2011. --- 6 --- Section 28 and 29 of the procedure rules, read as under : 28. Save in the case of property of the kind described in the first proviso to rule 19, no sale hereunder shall, without the consent in writing of the defaulter take place- (i) on Sunday or on any authorised civil court holiday or on any day declared as a local holiday for the area in which the sale is to be held : and (ii) until after the expiration of at least thirty days from the date on which the proclamation thereof was made. 29. (1) The Revenue Officer may, in his discretion, adjourn any sale hereunder to a specified day and hour and the officer conducting any such sale may, in his discretion, adjourn the sale recording his reasons for such adjournment : Provided that where the order of the Revenue Officer can be obtained in time, no such adjournment shall be made without such order. (2) Where a sale is adjourned under sub-rule (1) for a longer period than fifteen days, a fresh proclamation shall be made unless the defaulter consent to waive it. (3) Every sale shall be stopped if, before the lot is knocked down, the amount due and costs are tendered to the officer conducting the sale, or proof is given to his satisfaction that the amount of such dues and costs have been paid to the Revenue Officer who ordered the sale. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid statutory provision of law and for issuing a fresh proclamation --- 7 --- after adjourning the sale and 30 days notice is certainly not at all mandatory as provided under Rule 29 (2) of the aforesaid Rules. The Tehsildar has certainly granted 30 days clear notice while issuing first proclamation of sale meaning thereby a notice was issued on 4/3/2010 and the date of auction was fixed as 5/3/2010 and therefore keeping in view the aforesaid, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner. Not only this, this Court has gone through the relevant order sheet and there was a proper notice to the petitioner as provided under the Rules. The properlty has already been properly described in the auction notice and the controversy involved in the present case in respect of competence of the Tehsildar to conduct such proceedings has already been upheld in the case of WP NO. 10086/10 Smt. Pramila Ved Vs. Maharashtra Brahman Sahakari Bank Ltd., decided on 26/8/2010 and therefore this court does not find any reason to interfere with the auction notice issued by the Tehsildar and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR