SATHYANARAYANA RAO GHORPADE Vs. MINISTER OF CO OPERATION DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION GOVT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, questioning the legality and the validity of the order dated 24. 7. 2001 passed in Revision Petition No. CMW/46/cap/97 by the 1st respondent, has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE husband of the 2nd respondent was the owner of agricultural lands measuring 3 36 acres in Survey No 102/1 situated at Barandur, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District which was offered as security to the loan of Ramesh Srinivasa Nikkam availed from the respondent No. 4 Bank. Since the loanee did not repay the loan, the 4th respondent referred the matter to arbitrator and dispute was raised. In pursuance of the same, award was passed. Thereafter, execution petition was filed and the land belonging to the 2nd respondent was put in auction by way of issuing public auction notification. The petitioner being the highest bidder, his bid was accepted by the auction officer and a proposal was sent to the competent authority for confirming the sale and the same was communicated to the petitioner as per Annexure-A dated 5. 6. 1995. In pursuance of the said proposal, the competent authority has not accepted the bid of the petitioner and has not confirmed the sale in his favour by its order dated 31. 7. 1995 in Ref No KICB/arcs/sale Con/32/95-96. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal in No. DRB 2/11/96-97. The appellate authority, after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the competent authority by its order dated 18. 11. 1997. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 2 filed a revision before the Government in Revision Petition No. CMW/46/cap/97. The revisional authority, after hearing both the parties and after considering the material on record, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority by its order dated 24. 7. 2001. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the competent authority has passed the order dated 31. 7. 1995 behind his back, no notice was issued, no enquiry was conducted and hence it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the confirming authority has no power to pass the said order under the relevant provisions of the Act. Secondly, he submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority is in accordance with law and therefore interference by the revisional authority is contrary to the material on record Thirdly, he submitted that the revision filed by the 2nd respondent before the Government is not maintainable as she is not an aggrieved party because on the date of filing the revision, she has sold the property in favour of respondents 7 and 8. He contended that this aspect of the matter is not all taken into consideration by the revisional authority and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.