1 W.P. No. 6944/2000 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA WRIT PETITION NO. 6944/2000 ......... Petitioner : Ram Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Pyarelal Jaiswal, aged about 42 years, R/o Shahpur, Tehsil and District Dindori (M.P.) Versus ........ Respondents : 1. The President, M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. M.L. Sahu, S/o Shri Mullu Sahu, R/o Shahpur, Tehsil and District Dindori (M.P.) 3. Branch Manager, District Co-operative Land Development Bank Maryadit, Mandla (M.P.) 4. Recovery & Sale Officer, District Co-operative Land, Development Bank Maryadit, Mandla (M.P.) ................................................................................................... Petitioner - Shri Amod Gupta, Advocate. Respondent No.2 - Sanjay Patel, Advocate. ................................................................................................... Date of hearing : 04/03/2011 Date of Order : /03/2011 2 W.P. No. 6944/2000 O R D E R ( /03/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure P/1) passed by the M.P. State Cooperative Societies Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 114/1999 whereby the order dated 23.7.1992 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative in Revision No. 80-40/90 has been affirmed. 2. The respondent no.2, M.L.Sahu is the owner of the land in question situated in Village Sujapur, Tehsil and District Dindori. He applied for obtaining loan before respondent no.3 Bank in the year 1979 which was sanctioned and a loan of Rs.8000/- in his favour was paid in terms of the conditions of the Banking Rules but after respondent no.2 obtained the requisite loan, he could not repay the amount of Rs.6971/- along with interest as a result of which the Recovery and Sales Officer of the Bank (respondent no.4) gave him several notices to pay the balance amount of loan but it was not paid by the respondent no.2 till date. 3. Thereafter, the Recovery Officer of the Bank after giving full opportunity to the respondent no.2 started proceedings under Section 18(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Land Development Bank Adhiniyam, (in short 'Adhiniyam') for putting the land for auction in recovery case. Indeed the land in question was auctioned in favour of the petitioner for Rs.18,500/- being the highest bidder. After confirmation of sale, a sale certificate was also granted to him on 09.12.1989 by the Assistant Registrar, Mandla and accordingly on the basis of sale certificate, the Bhoomi-swami rights were conferred on him. According to the petitioner, he also entered into possession in the land in question and thereafter his 3 W.P. No. 6944/2000 name was also mutated in the revenue record. The sale certificate and the possession receipt of the land dated 09.12.1989 is filed as Annexure P/2. The mutation order of the Tehsildar in favour of the petitioner is Annexure P/3. 4. As per case of the petitioner, after 2½ years, the respondent no.2 filed a revision petition under Section 80 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jabalpur on the ground that the Bank and the Recovery Officer without informing him and without serving him any legal notice, with an intention to put the said land in auction. Thereafter, land was also auctioned. 5. The Joint Registrar allowed the revision application of respondent no.2 on 23.7.1992 on the ground that proper opportunity was not given to the respondent no.2, therefore, the proceeding of the Recovery Officer dated 23.5.1989 and 16.10.1989 is illegal. Eventually the same was set aside. The order of learned Joint Registrar is placed on record as Annexure P/4. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Branch Manager of District Co-operative Land Development Bank filed an appeal before the State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal and the learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure P/1) has affirmed the order of Joint Registrar and dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank. The Tribunal further directed that in case respondent no.2 deposits a sum of Rs.18,500/- with 5% commission with the Bank within two months from the date of the order then the auction sale will automatically stand cancelled. A review application was also filed by the Bank which was registered as Review application No. 50/2000 and the same was dismissed on 9.11.2000 by the 4 W.P. No. 6944/2000 learned Tribunal. In this manner, this petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the orders of the learned Tribunal and the Joint Registrar. 7. I have heard Shri Amod Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the record. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. On bare perusal of the impugned orders of Joint Registrar and the learned Tribunal, this Court finds that the proceeding of auction sale was in total contravention of the provisions of the Adhiniyam. Under Section 18 of the said Adhiniyam, the auction should be held in the Village where the land is situated. Undisputedly, the land is situated in Village Shahpur but in its place the auction took place in the branch premises of the Bank at Dindori and this fact is apparent from the record. The Recovery Sales Officer of the Bank did not render any reason that in place of Village Shahpur where the land is situated, why the auction took place in the branch premises at Dindori and what was the reason behind it. Indeed, in terms of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam, the auction ought to have been made in the Village where the land is situated and in case if the Auction Sales Officer is of the view that instead of getting the land auctioned in the Village, more money could fetch at other place, it should have been so written in the record but there is nothing on record and no reason has been assigned that instead of auctioning the land in question in the Village why the same was auctioned in the premises of the Bank at Dindori. The learned Tribunal in para 6 of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) has rightly arrived at such a conclusion that in complete derogation 5 W.P. No. 6944/2000 to Section 18 of the Adhiniyam, the auction has taken place. 10. On bare perusal of the findings of the learned Tribunal in para 7, this Court finds that within 30 days of the auction (23.5.1989), the respondent no.2 submitted an application in the Bank that he is ready to pay the entire amount which is due upon him but inspite of it, no order was passed by the Auction Sales Officer nor set aside the auction sale although it was necessary under Section 20 of the said Adhiniyam. The learned Tribunal further came to hold that in the record it has been mentioned that respondent no.2 appeared before the Bank and requested that he is ready to pay all the dues along with 5% of the auction price but why necessary orders in that regard has not been passed there is nothing on record. Indeed, had the application been accepted and had the respondent no.2 deposited the entire amount due upon him along with 5% of the auction price, the auction would have been set aside on the same date under Section 20 of the said Adhiniyam. 11. The learned Tribunal further found in para 8 of the impugned order that after confirmation of sale, the Joint Registrar did not inform to respondent no.2 and, therefore, the proceeding of sale confirmation also becomes defective. 12. The findings rendered by the learned Tribunal as well as by the learned Joint Registrar are pure findings of fact and cannot be interfered with in this petition. Indeed, rightly it has been ordered by learned Tribunal that in case the petitioner deposits the auction sale amount of Rs.18,500/- along with 5% commission, the entire sale proceedings stand quashed. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure P/1) of the Tribunal and the order dated 6 W.P. No. 6944/2000 23.7.1992 (Annexure P/4) of the Joint Registrar. A review application was also submitted by the Bank (respondent no.3) but the same was also dismissed on 09.11.2000. Thus, the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 23.7.1992 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Joint Registrar are hereby affirmed. 13. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao 7 W.P. No. 6944/2000