1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.674/2009 Sukhpal Singh. vs. State of Rajasthan & others. DATE OF ORDER : 22.1.2010 HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Sudhir Sharma, for the appellant. ------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment dated 12.9.2008 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4760/2007 filed by the present appellant. By this judgment, the learned Single Judge also decided another writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.4160/2007 (Kulwant Singh and ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.). While disposing of these writ petitions, the learned Single Judge set aside the sale dated 2.7.2007 made in favour of the present appellant/auction purchaser – Sukhpal Singh which was confirmed vide order dated 4.7.2007. The facts which are not in dispute are that the borrowers took loan from the respondent bank and they defaulted in payment thereof. The proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Rajasthan Agricultural (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 and the land in question which is an agricultural land, was attached and put to auction. The appellant gave his bid, however, the borrowers appeared before the authority concerned and submitted that they are ready to pay the entire 2 dues of the bank and in fact, they paid the entire dues. However, the sale in auction was also confirmed. The petitioner challenged that confirmation of sale and that was set aside by the learned Single Judge, hence, this special appeal. It is not in dispute that the entire loan amount has been paid by the borrowers and it is also not in dispute that the possession of the land was not handed over to the auction purchaser. The learned Single Judge was of the view that in the circumstances of the case, the auction sale and confirmation of sale were illegal. After considering the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, we are also of the considered view that the relief has been granted to the writ petitioners after taking into account of the facts and no equity or right has been created in favour of the auction purchasers in the facts of the case. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. [DINESH MAHESHWARI], J. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. S Phophaliya/-