C.W.P. No.7634 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7634 of 1988 Date of Decision: 12.12.2008 Mohinder Singh and others ..........Petitioners Versus The Prescribed Authority and another ............Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab. PERMOD KOHLI J. (ORAL) ******** Petitioners borrowed loan of Rs.60,000/- from respondent No.2- Bank for purchase of tractor on 10.08.1981. In consideration of the loan, petitioners besides the hypothecation of the tractor also mortgaged their joint landed property measuring 131 kanals and 3 marlas situated in Village Sandhiya, Tehsil Jagadhari as a security for the repayment of the loan. The loan was required to be paid in installments, however, admittedly the regular installments were not paid. It is stated that petitioners paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 01.06.1987 and another amount of Rs.10,000/- on 27.05.1988. On default being committed by the petitioners, respondent No.2-Bank initiated proceedings under Rule 8(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 before the prescribed authority vide its application dated 26.05.1986. Petitioners herein, who were non-applicants in the case, were put to notice and they appeared before the Collector, Jagadhari, District Ambala which is the Prescribed Authority under the Act. The said Prescribed Authority passed order dated 03.08.1988 whereby warrant of auction was issued for sale of the mortgaged property. Petitioners have come to this Court C.W.P. No.7634 of 1988 -2- challenging the aforesaid order. The only ground urged is that there has been violation of Section 8 read with Rule 7 of the Act, which requires one month's notice to the petitioners before an order for sale of the mortgaged property is passed. However, in the impugned order, it has been recorded that respondent be given one month notice. If the respondent does not pay the amount within one month, then the amount may be recovered by selling his mortgaged property. It is further stated that the respondent has filed objections but he did not pay the amount. From the impugned order, it is clearly evident that the petitioners had the notice more than one year back. There is substantial compliance of Section 8 read with Rule 7. I do not find any infirmity in the order. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioners that during the pendency of this petition, petitioners have paid substantial amount i.e. Rs.96,000/- till 1994 which fact is evident from the affidavit of one Mr. P.S. Bhatia, Loan Officer of respondent No.2-Bank. In the said affidavit, petitioner admitted that the debit balance as on 15.05.1994 was Rs.1,59,195/- against which the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.96,640/-. In view of the affidavit, this petition is disposed of in the following manner:- (i) The respondent-Bank shall determine the amount payable and file a fresh statement after adjustment of the amount already paid by the petitioner uptodate before the Prescribed Authority. (ii) The Prescribed Authority shall only sell the land which is sufficient to satisfy the loan. There is no necessity to sell the entire mortgaged property. After decree being satisfied, rest of the mortgaged property shall be restored to the petitioners. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the C.W.P. No.7634 of 1988 -3- Central Government has already waived the agricultural loans. This fact shall also be considered by the Prescribed Authority and petitioners are at liberty to place relevant material before the Prescribed Authority. December 12, 2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) Pankaj* JUDGE