BALDEO ALIAS BALDEVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. By this pe tition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26. 7. 2004 and 27. 9. 2002 passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 i. e. Board of Revenue and Commissioner Bareilly Re gion. Bareilly respectively.

(2.) IT is stated that WIMCO Ltd. had sponsored a scheme for plantation of pop lar plants in Bareilly region and other areas in which farmers of area were supplied plants at the instance of WIMCO Company and on the recommendation of WIMCO Ltd. the Bank had advanced loan to the farmers who were interested in plantation of poplar plants in the aforesaid region. Under the aforesaid scheme the Punjab National Bank had advanced loan to the petitioners on the recommendation of WIMCO Ltd. in tune of Rs. 72,500/- to be payable in 5 yearly instalments from 1988 to 1992. The aforesaid loan was not given to the petitioners directly, rather the loan amount was paid to the WIMCO Ltd. which had supplied the poplar plants for plantation. The aforesaid amount was dis bursed to the petitioners under the aforesaid scheme in different years. IT is stated that the plants which were planted by the petitioners were not fully grown and as per agreement WIMCC Ltd. had not purchased the poplar trees grown by the petitioners, accordingly the petitioners could not replay the amount of loan advanced to them. Al though the scheme was not sponsored by State under which loan was given to the petitioners, instead thereof the loan was given to the petitioner under cash credit facility scheme and Bank was not entitled to issue any recovery certificate for realisa tion of loan amount from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue but Bank has sent recovery certificate to the Collector, in pur suance of which Tehsildar issued citation to the petitioners. Against the aforesaid re covery, the petitioners have filed writ peti tion before this Court but meanwhile the opposite party No. 4 attached the land of the petitioners and ultimately put the land for auction. The petitioners had no knowl edge about the date of auction and Tehsil dar has auctioned the land of petitioners to the respondent No. 5 for amount of Rs. 2,60,000/ -. However, when the petitioners came to know about the auction, they im mediately filed objection under Rule 285 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Rules before Commissioner Bareilly Region, Bareilly but the Commis sioner without any cogent reason has re jected the aforesaid objection of the peti tioners vide order dated 27. 2. 2002. Ag grieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly the petition ers have filed revision before Board of Revenue. Initially the Board of Revenue stayed the operation of order dated 27. 9. 2002 passed by Commissioner. Bareilly and summoned the records of the Court below but ultimately after hearing the peti tioners and Counsel for opposite parties dismissed the same vide order dated 26. 7. 2004 impugned in the writ petition. IT is stated that in spite of auction of the land in question the petitioners are still in pos session but the respondent No. 5 has also sold the said land to other persons, there fore, the petitioners are apprehending that now transferees would disturb peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute.

(3.) IN such facts and circumstances of the case the Tehsildar Aonla, District Bareilly and Sub Divisional Officer, Bareilly are directed to file their personal affidavits stating the facts that for which amount the recovery certificate was issued by the bank and what was the market value of land at relevant point of time which has been auctioned and how the aforesaid land was auctioned in the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- and how much money was paid to the bank along with the papers of auction proceed ing? They are also directed to appear be fore this Court in person and file their affi davits on the date fixed by this Court.