// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5841/2004 Ramesh Chand Ghiya S/o Shri Damodar Ghiya ...Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its Chairman & Managing Director and Others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 18.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel for petitioner Shri Abhishek Jain and Shri Anshul Singh, Advocates, for Shri G.C. Garg, Counsel for respondents No.1 to 2 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned notice dated 27.07.2004 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 demanding a sum of Rs.42,647/- from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- was taken by the petitioner in the year 1978 and on failure to deposit the loan amount the land and building along-with machinery was taken in possession by the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation in the year 1984, thereafter no notice was given to the petitioner for auctioning the property as well as the machinery and behind the back of the petitioner the same was auctioned on the nominal amount. He further contended that had the petitioner received notice before auction of the attached property then he would have brought persons offering higher bid amount of sale of his property and his dues would have been adjusted and he would have got refund of the amount. // 2 // The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he has not challenged the auction proceedings in the writ petition but he has challenged only the impugned notice dated 27.07.2004 (Annexure-4) in it with a prayer to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.58,000/- to him along-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file representation before the respondents No.1 and 2 taking all legal objections before them about their action. He further submits that a reasonable time may be granted to him to file the representation and recovery proceedings initiated against him may be stayed for a reasonable time. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection in case permission is granted to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and to file representation before the respondents No.1 and 2. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and, after considering the same, I find the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner to be reasonable. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents No.1 and 2 about his grievance and against the actions of the respondents within a period of one month from today. The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner sympathetically preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the representation and during the pendency of that representation no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner for realizing the disputed amount. There will be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 3 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.4998/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5841/2004 Ramesh Chand Ghiya S/o Shri Damodar Ghiya ...Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur through its Chairman & Managing Director and Others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 18.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel for petitioner Shri Abhishek Jain and Shri Anshul Singh, Advocates, for Shri G.C. Garg, Counsel for respondents No.1 to 2 #### By the Court:- Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//