GEN MANAGER MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are that in the year 1975, as per the petitioner, the loan was taken by Respondent No. 3 from the petitioner Bank and as per the petitioner various parcels of the lands total admeasuring 56 acres and 17 gunthas were mortgaged with the petitioner Bank. As per the petitioner, since the amount remained unpaid, the recovery certificates were issued and thereafter the auction was also scheduled on 21. 05. 1992 initially. However, as none came forward to purchase the land, the offer was given by the circle Inspector in capacity as the representative of the State Government for Rs. 2,481/-per acre total Rs. 1,44,000/ -. It appears that after the auction was held and before the sale could be confirmed by the recovery officer, Respondent No. 3 preferred Special Civil application No. 3347 of 1992 before this Court for Challenging the action of respondent bank and also the recovery officer. This Court (Coram; M. J. Pandya, J.) on 20. 05. 1992 when passed the order, negatived the contention for the benefit of policy of Debt Relief up to Rs. 10,000/- to each of the debtor, however, so far as the second contention of the notice, the payment made, etc. are concerned, it was observed by the Court that the petitioner therein respondent No. 3 herein may make representation to the Bank and if made, the same will be decided by the bank within three weeks from the date of the order and till then the impugned notice Annexure "a" was stayed.

(2.) IT appears that thereafter the Special Recovery Officer vide order dated 22. 06. 1992 confirmed the sale based on the auction held by him. The Respondent No. 3 and others preferred revision before the State Government against the decision of the Special Recovery officer under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" ). The State Government in revisional jurisdiction found that there is no proper fixation of upset price and also found that there is no proper compliance to the order passed by this Court on 20. 05. 1992 and also observed that first attempt shall be made to recover the amount from the movable properties and thereafter the immovable properties may be taken for recovery of the amount. Ultimately, the State Government partly allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the Special Recovery Officer for confirmation of the sale and directed that fresh proceedings to be undertaken for recovery of the amount and under the circumstances the present petition.

(3.) I have heard Ms. Bhaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Desai, learned agp for Respondents No. 1 and 2. Nobody has appeared for Respondents No. 3 to 8.