COCP No. 1566 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1566 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.8.2010 Maha Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus Shri Ranbir Singh Khatra ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Surmukh Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioners filed Crl. Misc. No. M-18422 of 2009 before this Court, with the grievance that a loan of Rs.4,70,000/- was taken by the petitioners and 29 kanals of the agricultural land was mortgaged with the Punjab Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank, Rajpura. A sum of Rs.1,35,000/- was returned to the Bank, but for non payment of the remaining amount of Rs.3,33,000/-, 29 acres of prime agricultural land of the petitioners was sold by the Bank without following due procedure and, therefore, the FIR may be registered against the culprits for selling the valuable land at a cheaper rate. This Court vide order dated 13.7.2009 disposed of the said petition with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, COCP No. 1566 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Patiala, to decide representation filed by the petitioners within a period of two months. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that the said order has not been given effect to. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find that any cognizable offence, prima-facie, is disclosed to have been committed by the Officials of the Punjab Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank. Admittedly, the petitioners have not paid the loan amount and in the process of recovery of such loan, land has been put to sale. If more land than what was required, has been sold to realize the debts and/or proper procedure has not been followed, the remedy of the petitioners lies before the authorities conducting the sale by way of an appeal or revision. However, the act of sale of the land for recovery of debt, cannot be said to have disclosed any cognizable offence. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 11.8.2010 ds