JAGDISHKUMAR MANGALDAS PATEL Vs. SPECIAL RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.and 2. xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) The third respondent in each matter had taken loan from the second respondent and since he could not repay the said amount to the said Cooperative Society, the proceedings were initiated against the respective respondent and accordingly, certificates were issued and obtained under Section 106 of the Cooperative Society Act for recovery of the said amount. The matters went to the Special Recovery Officer, Surat, i.e. respondent No. 1 in each case. It seems from the records that the said officer held public auction in respect of lands belonging to the said respondent No. 3 in each case. It appears from the record that the petitioner in each matter purchased the said land in public auction held by the Special Recovery Officer, i.e. first respondent in each matter. The amount was paid up and the lands were purchased by the respective petitioners in each case since their bid was accepted by the Special Recovery Officer. Accordingly, entries were posted in the name of the petitioner respectively since they were declared purchaser and occupant of the said land. Thereafter, it appears from the record that on 27 -12 -1989 Collector, Surat issued notices to the aforesaid petitioners for the first time saying that the petitioners were not agriculturists and, therefore, the sale of agricultural land in favour of the petitioners was illegal and, therefore, they were asked to show cause as to why the said order of sale in favour of the petitioner be not cancelled. Date and time was given to the petitioners for appearance. It also appears from the record that learned Collector heard the petitioners and passed orders on 13 -11 -1991directing cancellation of the aforesaid public auction on 4 -11 -1978 held by the Special Recovery Officer. The learned Collector also directed that the aforesaid amount be refunded by the said Society, i.e. respondent No. 2 to the said purchasers, i.e. the petitioners. It is further directed that the charge over the said land shall again be imposed and fresh process for recovery be effected, It is further directed that records of right should also be" altered accordingly.

(3.) The petitioners felt aggrieved by the said order and therefore they preferred revision application before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, (Appeals) Government of Gujarat, Ahmedabad. The matter was heard by the said Authority and by an order dated 4 -3 -1992 the said revision application was dismissed by the said Authority.