HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1244 of 2010 (M/S) Karam Singh. ……..Petitioner Versus tate of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents S Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State/respondent nos. 1 & 3, Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for respondent no.2/Bank, Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for intervener. Dated: July 29, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the citation dated 27.04.2010 passed by the respondent no.3 (annexure no.2 to this writ petition), ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondents not to auction the land of the petitioner against the loan taken by him, iii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner, iv) Cost of the petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated that petitioner is resident of Majra Pachhu, Beriya Daulat, Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner took a loan for purchasing tractor trolley alongwith the crop loan from State Bank of India, Bazpur against his land bearing Khata No. 00033 measuring 2.5260 hectare situated in village Beriya Daulat, Tehsil Bazpur. The petitioner is challenging issuance of Recovery Citation 27.04.2010 whereby a sum of Rs. 6,66,750/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner in respect of the loan given to him by respondent-Bank. It is asserted that petitioner hails from 2 Scheduled Tribe Community. It is stated in the petition that provision of Section(s) 157-A and 157C restricts to transfer any property of SC/ST member in any manner except previous approval of Collector. It is further asserted that said amount of loan cannot not be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the respondent no.3 is ignoring provisions of the scheme provided by the Central Govt. under Protection of Debt Recovery Scheme, 2008. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled to be benefited of the said scheme. It is further asserted that the petitioner is willing to repay the loan amount but in easy installments, but without issuing any notice all of a sudden Recovery Citation has been issued. It is stated in the petition that the respondents wants to dispose of land of the petitioner by way of auction. Hence this petition. 3. During the course of arguments, an intervention application has been filed in the Court by Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Harvinder Singh/intervener. Same was taken on record and was allowed and the intervener was permitted to participate and intervene in the matter. 4. I have heard Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 3, Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for respondent no.2/Bank. Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for intervener and perused the record. 5. In the intervention application, the applicant Harvinder Singh has categorically stated that on 12.07.2010 the land of the petitioner Khasra No. 895 & 3 896 measuring 0.6180 hectare situated in village Beria Daulat, Tehsil Bazpur, Distruct U.S. Nagar, which was attached for the purposes for the recovery of said loan, was auctioned by the Tehsildar, Bazpur in a public auction. The applicant/intervener also participated in the auction of the land belonging to petitioner-Karam Singh held on 12.07.2010 alongwith other persons and the intervener was declared as the auction purchaser, as he made the highest bid of Rs. 8.40 lacs. Now the applicant is the bonafide auction-purchaser of Khasra No. 895 and 896 measuring 0.6180 hectare of said land. 6. Mr. M.S. Pal, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the auction was held on 12.07.2010 but the Tehsildar, Bazpur issued proclamation order on 23.05.2010 and auction was done before expiry of 30 days, which was mandatory under the law. 7. From a bare perusal of the assertions made in the petition as well as in the intervention application moved by Mr. Harvinder Singh S/0 Sri Jogendra Singh it appears that in pursuance of the citation dated 27.04.2010 possession of the land has been taken over and the land in question was auctioned on 12.07.2010 and Mr. Harvinder Singh has became bonafide auction- purchaser of the land in dispute. The auction-purchaser has deposited 1/4th amount of the auction money on 12.07.2010 and the rest amount of the auction money i.e. Rs. 6.30 lac has also been deposited on 24.07.2010 with the authorities concerned. The copies of deposit receipts dated 12.07.2010 and 24.07.2010 are annexed as annexure no. 1 to the affidavit filed by the intervener. It 4 has also come in this application that the petitioner filed objection before the S.D.M., Bazpur on 15.07.2010 against the public auction. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank as well as the intervener drew my attention to Rule 285-H and 285-I of The U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 and submitted that now only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach before the authority concerned either of these. It is vehemently argued that on one hand the petitioner filed objection to set-aside the auction dated 12.07.2010 before S.D.M, Bazpur on 15.07.2010 and on the other hand he filed writ petition seeking quashing of Recovery Citation dated 27.04.2010. Thus, the petitioner cannot be granted liberty to avail two remedies simultaneously for one and same cause of action. 9. In view of the fact that after issuing the citation, possession of the property in question has been taken over, the property has been auctioned and Mr. Harvinder Singh (intervener) has became the bonafide auction-purchaser, therefore instant petition has rendered infructuous. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having been infructuous. However, it will be open for the petitioner to approach before the authority concerned for redressal of his grievances under Rule 285-H or 285-I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 or any other provision applicable in the matter. In case, the petitioner invokes remedy before concerned authority, the authority 5 concerned is directed to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. Stay application (CLMA No. 5910/10) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 29.07.2010 NCM: