srjwp-7418-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.7418 of 2009 Popat Gyanu Pawar .. Petitioner V/s. Shree Satyavijay Sahakari Bank Ltd., & Ors., .. Respondents. Mr.P.G.Lad, for Petitioner. Mr.A.P.Kulkarni i/b. U.R.Mankapure, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.D.Rairikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, for Respondent No.5. CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 12th January, 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. 2. Heard all Advocates. 3. The Petitioner has challenged the order passed in Revision Application no.132 of 2008, passed by the Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur,rejecting the Petitioner s Revision Application. 4. The Petitioner had taken a loan from Respondent No.1 Bank. The said loan was not repaid by the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 Bank obtained recovery certificate on 17th November, 2003, Ex. B to srjwp-7418-09.sxw 2 the Petition. The recovery certificate shows that the principal amount of Rs.5,34,003/- payable with interest @ 20% p.a. thereon. The Petitioner had not repaid amount in the recovery certificate. The Respondent No.1 Bank auctioned the Petitioner s tractor and recovered Rs.2,68,000/-. The Bank has given credit to the Petitioner for that amount. No further amount was paid. Hence, the Bank, upon following due legal procedure, auctioned the Petitioner s property i.e. 1/3 rd share of the Petitioner in his family property being agricultural land. 5. The Respondent Bank issued auction notice on 30th July, 2007. 10 persons attended the auction. 4 persons bid at the auction. The bidding took place on 12th September, 2007. The Respondent No.5 was the highest bidder. The sale was confirmed in his favour on 6th November, 2007. The Sale Deed has been executed. 6. At no point of time, the Petitioner challenged the auction sale. The Petitioner, however, filed the Revision Application before Respondent No.4. The Petitioner,inter alia,brought to the notice of the original authority the fact that the auction has been made at an under valuation .The Petitioner stated in his Revision Application that his property which was srjwp-7418-09.sxw 3 worth Rs.15,00,000/- was sold for Rs.7,00,000/-. However, no sale in the same village of similar property at said valuation was produced by the Petitioner or shown to the Revisional Authority. Revisional Authority has, therefore, naturally not considered the value of the property as the particulars about the valuation had not been shown. The Revisional authority has considered that only the share of the Petitioner has been sold. 7. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has produced Index II in respect of sale of another land in the same village in the same year. Index II shows property of 80R under survey no.525 being sold on 30th March, 2007 for the price of Rs.14,00,000/-. The Petitioner s property is 71 R. It has been sold in November, 2007. It is in the same village. The Bank, therefore, did not obtain market value of the property. 8. It can be seen that though the Petitioner has not strictly followed the provisions with regard to the challenge to the sale of the immovable property by the Recovery Officer, as per Rule 107, sub-rules 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, the Petitioner has shown to this Court albeit at a later stage, that his case before srjwp-7418-09.sxw 4 the Revisional Authority (which was without particulars of the value of his property) is not only bonafide but reasonably accurate. Mr.Lad, contended that the Petitioner being an illiterate agriculturist deserves to be headed and his only ancestral agricultural property deserves to be returned to the Petitioner on any conditions put by the Court. 9. It is seen that the auction purchaser has purchased the property at Rs.7,00,000/- while it was otherwise valued at around Rs.13,00,000/-.The purchaser has complied with the terms of the auction as prescribed by law. The purchaser is required to be returned the value of the property with reasonable interest thereon, if the Petitioner has to cancel the sale deed at this late stage. 10. The Respondent No.1 Bank has been paid off its entire dues. The sale value has been deposited with Respondent No.1 Bank.The Petitioner has deposited with Respondent No.1 Bank a sum of Rs.8,41,414.00 as directed by this Court as per the statement of the Bank showing the account of the Petitioner. 11. The Petitioner contended that the Respondent No.1 Bank has charged more interest than agreed. The Respondent No.1 Bank contended that this is as per recovery certificate. Respondent No.l Bank will be srjwp-7418-09.sxw 5 entitled to the interest @ 20% p.a. on Rs.5,34,000/-,which is the principal sum adjudged, court fees incurred by the Bank, stamp duty incurred by the Bank, litigation expenses of the bank and all the expenses with regard to the auction sale incurred by bank towards the cancellation of the sale in favour of the Respondent No.5. The interest of justice shall be best served if the bank is paid its aforesaid dues, the auction purchaser is returned the amount of auction together with reasonable interest thereon to be paid by the Petitioner to the auction purchaser and if the Petitioner is returned his agricultural property. Hence, the following order:- (a) Respondent No.1 Bank shall give its Statement of Account of the amount claimed by Respondent No.1 Bank as shown in the statement of the Petitioner s account alongwith further amount incurred by Bank for the auction and the cancellation of the sale deed to the Petitioner within one week from the date of this order; (b) The Petitioner shall pay any amount in excess of the amount already paid by the Petitioner to the Bank within four weeks from the date of this order; srjwp-7418-09.sxw 6 (c) The Petitioner shall be given credit for any amount if already paid in excess to the bank. (d) The Petitioner shall pay to Respondent No.5  auction purchaser interest @15% p.a. on a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- from 12th September, 2007 until the date of payment. The Petitioner shall make this payment within four weeks from the date of this order. (e) Respondent No.1 Bank and Respondent No.5 shall execute the cancellation of sale deed within four weeks from the date of payment to Respondent No.5. The Petitioner shall be handed over the original cancellation deed at the time of its execution. The Respondent No.1 Bank and Respondent No.5 may retain a xerox copy thereof. The Petitioner shall sign such xerox copies. (f) Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)