(^ IN THB HJOH COURT OF JIBIC&TBRB AT BILaSP(ja(eHHft,TT]S<^«H) WRIT PSTITIOB i'13.'S^-^) OF 2003 ^ s Ra]tes& SWI^K s»a•£SteJi Kam KumaiT /.Sani, aged abeut 35 years, OccuyatfB- / TeaeBieK.resliden* •£near Skeetla 1 Mata Mand.te.Saaaayra.WBrd N•.22. Telssll aga BAstriGt-Rajnandga<ia, (e.G. ) VE R S US KBSPOM3BN2S. sl. Sfeate Banle ®fXndj.a, tArougfa B^anch Manager.Maln Brancih KamtM. IAne,Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) s2.» San.i.A Kumaz- B&ansaU, son of Vtsteagi BhBi.aged about 28 years, ^,^ 'Ec'lmurtd ladla l<td.,4/5,,i3anfca ^.<t<y>' auarters.Iiak&olA.Rajnanagaon, <G.G. ) y''t^ \ 1 <3. Bfaaaji B&a» Katarlya, spn of Viista-am ^%@^ ^y"^y .^•'",<^ <^^ ^•^y ^"^f ^~./' '^.>y Bfeal, aged about 3S years. tlarougte Mayuri Investaent Oorporatlon, near Qitanjaia Hofeel.Station Road, Ol.strli&t-aaj.pur. (C.G,) {4 „ Beputy Regls trar, OtSiee of RegAstrar.Kajnandgaon,(e.G.) WRIT .PBTITJON UNEBR ARTIGI^iS 22^/227-6? ftiBt L-ONSTITWJON OF BB3IA. pAR-ricuiAas OF i il;i;;.it ti-ls-.tUs^'.t an^iqff felTSIi^I ^iwgfsg "T"T ^ffqi?pt, riTfly'id, fawi'yy 03. p. (-U3 'l^ll/^ 311^1 ^RHWgf^i Raji^and ati Siat. Indira Tripafhi, counsejl Heard. By this petition under Articl^ ttie petitioner has chaUenged the 4 fhe leamed District Judge, 5-B/2002 by which the leamed not a^ccepted thc highcst bid of fh^ amoimt of fh.e highest bid is not 41 market price, fherefore, it is not jujs The petitioner hereia is bearuig I-Qiasra No.453/ 1 situatecj No.36 Distnct Rajnandgaoii ia th4 )lot was auctioaed in the Esti -/ satisfaction of the decrce:. passed] ladia, Rajnaadgaon aad the plo^ after issuing public notice and Rs.81,l00/-was ofthe petitioncr, the leamed District Judge, Rajna4c aiid the leamed Distnct Judge issued for the registration of fhe coii.clusion that the price is m.uc}i that area, therefore, hc was not being not sufficient amount for sali Learaed counsel for the p| Distnct Judge, Rajnandgaon oug|i jujstified ajna4d ^iiT^^ 'RTR^rf ^ ts^i' <pii'(^i< ^siPwan^i for fhe petitioner. t 226/227 ofConstitutionofIudia ti-cler dated 10.09.2003 passed by saon in Execution Case No. pistrict Judge, Rajnandgaon has petitioner on the grouiid fhat the lufficient aad aot according to fhe to confii'm tlie sale. auction piirchaser of the plot at Bhavani Nagar, Pat<vai~i Halka size of0.06y2 decimal. The said tecution Ca.se No.5-B/2002 for ui favour of fhe State Bank of in question was put to aucUon. tt the auction fhe highest bid of Thc papcrs werc subniitted bcforc saon for confirmation of Uie sale souig through the guide.liues plot ia that area reached to fhe less tban fhe price reseived for iatisfied wifh fhe auction amount of that propert}". btitioner argued that tlie feanied |it to have confirmed fhe sale as [Tft^^( altter w' XI-HC—7S '75T "!41'41d'4, (Stll'M'ls, ls«n!-Llli< U7.p.t.&o.3^jj^. sn^r'Ta^i' (iciij'!<^(t) sn^rqaftTO? WII 311^1 stili't 1.1..1- J- \°\t^< ^WIWHfCT SII^T flie petitioiier bid was fhe highe; fhat area tlie price of ftie land i was fetchiiig sufficient price .t bid. She further argued tliat ia not that niuch bigh aad the plot ird thq, leamed District -Judgc, Rajnaadgaon ought to havs confituied fhe same. I have peiTised the impufened oi-der iii which the leaiiied District Judge, Rajnau.dgaon 1| guideliaes of fhe Sub-Registrar i^ir sale of the land in fhat area is Rs.176/- per square laeter and| aiictioned in the sale is about 3; price was Rs.81,100/-, therefQre, conclusion fhat this is not the ^ufScient price of fhe plot aad the sale was not confinned bv the Dil question to its satisfaction after District Judge is ia aav way arbil has acted bcyond his jurisdi<| substaiice, which is Uable to bd ui^ent heariag also staiids dispos =bwlcl<i)-l tllWf'? fe^t <fat<K ^? affim Stl^t as inentioned fhat as per the the area of thc plot which was 00 sq. ft. a&d the highest auction the District Judge reached to tlie trict Judge. In the auction sale it is for thc cxecuting court to asjsess the price of the properhr in bom.g iato the relevant record asd prevailmg price io. that arg6. Lea)m.ed counsel for fhe petitioner has / ' l • • • • not been able to poiiit^out fhajt ftie discretLon exercised by, fh.e \rary, uiu-easonable, unjust aad he tion or has faflcd to cxcrcise jurisdiction wbich is vested in W-i^. Therefore, I am ofthe opiai()n fhat the petitioner has not been able to m.ake out a case to inteilfere with fhe order of fhe leanied District Judge, Rajnaadgaon. Tjtus writ petition is devoid of any disinissed aiid accorduigly, it is S>-V f disnussed. Consequently, M.W.P. 310|4/03 aud I.A. No.9873/2003 for ;dof. Sd/- , L.C.BHADOO Judge