AMRUBHAI AEBHALBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COLLECTOR , Amreli permitted to be joined as additional respondent no.2. Learned AGP waived service of rule for the said respondent.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged an order dated 4.2.2000 passed by the Collector, Amreli as confirmed by an order dated 22.7.2005 passed by the Joint Secretary(Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat.

(3.) FEW facts more or less emerge undisputed. The petitioners were the erstwhile owners of the land in question. There were outstanding dues of Rs.1900/ -of the bank. The petitioners had not repaid the amount. In the year 1980, therefore, the land was put in auction. Apparently, since there were no bidders, the Mamlatdar paid upset price of Rs.11,550/ -. Land was thus shown to have purchased by the Government through auction. The petitioners' contentions that no notice for recovery of outstanding dues of the bank was issued, no notice of proposed auction of the land was issued, no proper publicity to the proposed auction was given are the averments which the petitioners have been making from the beginning without any denial from the respondents. The petitioners first application dated 25.9.1993 is not on record. However, in all subsequent pleadings, the petitioners have been taking the stand repeatedly and consistently. At no stage any of the revenue authorities, the Collector or the Revenue Secretary ever denied any of these allegations. The orders passed by the Collector and the last order passed by the Revenue Secretary rejecting the request of the petitioners are based solely on the factor that the application for regrant of loan was made 12 years after the land was auctioned. In the present petition also, it is averred by the petitioners that no intimation or information of the recovery or of the auction for the alleged debt was ever given to the petitioners. The auction was not brought to the notice of any residents of the village. Thus proper publicity to the auction was also not given. It is contended that entire auction was held behind the back of the petitioners without their knowledge and without proper publicity. Even after posting of entries in the revenue records in terms of socalled auction, the petitioners continued to cultivate the land being in actual possession thereof. None of these averments are denied by the respondents. No documents or proceedings have been produced to suggest that notice was given to the petitioners for recovery of outstanding dues of the bank or of coercive recovery, if the dues were not paid up. No notice of proposed auction to the petitioner is produced. Even the mode or manner of publication of public auction is not stated. I therefore, proceed on the basis that entire auction was conducted in breach of basic rules of natural justice and against any canons of recovery proceedings.