Case: Ram Kishun &amp; Others Vs. State of U.P. &amp; Others

A. One Ganga Prasad had taken an agricultural loan to the tune of Rs.8,425/- from the Union Bank of India (Banda Branch) on 20.3.1982 and Chuni Lal, father of the appellants stood guarantor. Ganga Prasad, debtor died in 1985 and Chuni Lal died in 1986. Chuni Lal could not pay the loan during his life time. Therefore, the bank initiated the proceedings for recovery and ultimately sent the matter to the District Collector, Banda for realisation of the loan amount as an arrear of land revenue.B. The Collector issued citation/recovery certificate on 13.1.19986 for an amount of Rs.10,574.45 plus 10% collection charges against Ganga Prasad.C. In order to make the recovery, land measuring 3 bigha 2 biswas belonging to said Ganga Prasad was put to auction and it could fetch only a sum of Rs.6,000/-. In order to recover the balance amount the proceedings were initiated against the appellants as their father stood guarantor. It is evident from the record that the appellants raised objections that instead of putting their property to auction, the loan amount be recovered from legal heirs of Ganga Prasad as he had left movable/immovable properties and livestocks and other assets to meet the recovery of the bank loan. Their objections were not accepted and the land of the appellants measuring 1 bigha and 10 biswas was put to auction on 15.3.1993. Respondent No. 4 purchased the said land for Rs.25,000/-. In respect of the same, sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued by the Collector in favour of respondent No.4 and he was put in possession.D. Appellants raised various objections under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 before the Commissioner, Jhansi, but their objections stood rejected vide order dated 27.7.1992 only on the ground of delay as the objections were not filed within limitation and no sufficient cause could be shown for inordinate delay.E. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Board of Revenue, U.P. by filing Revision No. 2 Cell/92-93. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.3.2001 as the Revisional Authority did not accept the explanation for condonation of delay.F. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court challenging the said revisional order of the Commissioner by filing Writ Petition No. 22420 of 2001 which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated

Reasoning:
Admittedly, the father of the appellants stood guarantor when Ganga Prasad took loan from the bank. Though there are some documents to show that there were two guarantors but who was the other guarantor is not evident from the record, nor such a plea had ever been taken by the appellants before the courts below. As the appellants had inherited the estate of the guarantor, they are liable to meet the liability of unpaidappellants land admeasuring 1 bigha and 10 biswas was sold for Rs.25,000/-. It cannot be held, even by any stretch of imagination, that the land had been sold at a heaper rate, for the reasons, that the land belonging to Ganga Prasad (principal debtor) measuring 3 bighas and 2 biswas in the same village in a close proximity of time had been sold for a sum of Rs.6,000/- only. More so, elder brother of the appellant no.1 Ram Swaroop had participated in the auction and given the bid of Rs.20,000/- for the land in dispute. In view of the above, the submission made by Shri Garg that property worth Rs.2,00,000/- had been sold at a throw away price of Rs.25,000/- is not worth acceptance.25. No fundamental procedural error had been pointed out which would vitiate the order of confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate.26. The total amount of loan sanctioned in favour of Ganga Prasad was Rs.4,425/-. The Collector issued citation for recovery of Rs.10,574/- on 13.1.1986 and the total amount to be recovered including principal amount, interest, collection charges etc. came to Rs.14,483.15P. The property of Ganga Prasad had been sold for a sum of Rs.6,000/-. So, the total amount to be recovered remained about Rs.8,500/-. The appellants land had been sold for Rs.25,000/- i.e., three times the amount which was to be recovered. In the facts and circumstances of this case, instead of putting this whole land admeasuring 1 bigha and 10 biswas, the sale of 1/3rd of this land could have served the purpose. Therefore, there had been material irregularity in putting the entire property to auction.27. In case, the auctioning authority had received Rs.25,000/- from the respondent no.4 as a sale consideration after adjusting the outstanding dues of Rs.8,500/-, the balance amount of Rs.16,500/- ought to have been paid to the appellants. There is nothing on record to show that authorities had ever adopted such a course.28. In view of the above, the auction sale stood vitiated and all the consequential proceedings are liable to befor the reasons best known to the appellants, they have neither impleaded the Bank (creditor) nor any of the legal heirs of Ganga Prasad (principal debtor). In such a fact-situation, it becomes difficult to proceed with the case any further.29. Be that as it may, the respondent No.4 had been put in possession of the land more than two decades ago and he had madeCourt has consistently held that such a possession should not be disturbed at a belated stage for the reason that such a person would have spent his whole life savings in improving the land and making developments thereon which may include the construction of residences etc. (See: State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 1297 ; and Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue & Ors., AIR 1994 S 1128).