MAGANLAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RELEVANT facts. On August 24, 2000, Branch Manager, Dena Bank, respondent No. 2, issued two Revenue Recovery Certificates (RRCs), under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (herein after referred to as the Lok Dhan Adhiniyam), and were referred to tahsildar, Ratlam, under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh land Revenue Code, 1959, (herein after referred to as the revenue Code), for effecting recovery of dues outstanding against one Sunita and Ashok Kumar Jain. Whereas, it was indicated that against Sunita an amount of Rs. 91,955/- was outstanding, Ashok kumar Jain was shown to be a debtor to the extent of rs. 2,49,703/ -. A demand notice was issued by the Tahsildar, ratlam, to the aforesaid two persons for the amounts mentioned against them, respectively. However, Ashok Kumar Jain expired on may 7, 2001. Even after the death of Ashok Kumar Jain, proceedings for recovery against him and Sunita were continued before the Tahsildar. In the said proceedings, House No. 17, porwalon Ka Vaas, Ratlam (herein after referred to as the house in question), being jointly owned by Ashok Kumar Jain and present petitioner, Maganlal Jain, (father of Ashok Jain), was ordered to be attached on September 28, 2001. The said house was ultimately auctioned on January 30, 2002. Respondent No. 3, Shakuntala Devi participated in the auction proceedings, and was declared as the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 3,08,000/ -. The sale in question was confirmed by the Tahsildar vide order dated June 13, 2002 in favour of respondent No. 3. An order of confirmation passed by the Tahsildar has been appended as Annexure P/1 with the petition.

(2.) AN appeal was filed against the order dated June 30, 2002, passed by the Tahsildar before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), respondent No. 5. On October 22, 2002, the aforesaid appellate Authority granted an interim order in favour of the appellants. Against the interim order granted by the Appellate authority, a revision petition was preferred by Shakuntala Devi, auction purchaser, before the Additional Collector. The aforesaid revision petition filed by Shakuntala Devi was allowed by the additional Collector on September 27, 2003, holding that the appeal, filed by the aforesaid appellants, before the Sub Divisional officer, against the order of the Tahsildar, was not maintainable in law. Consequently, the interim protection granted by the appellate Authority on October 22, 2002, was vacated. A copy of the order dated September 27, 2003, passed by Additional collector, respondent No. 4, has been appended as Annexure P/3, with the petition.

(3.) PETITIONER, Maganlal Jain, preferred a writ petition, being W. P. No. 9490/2003, before this Court. The order passed by the Additional Collector Annexure P/3 was challenged. An interim protection was granted to the writ petitioner by this Court on september 18, 2003, on deposit of Rs. 50,000/ -. The aforesaid amount was duly deposited by the writ petitioner on November 28, 2003. Ultimately, writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed by this Court on August 4, 2005. The order dated september 27, 2003, Annexure P/3, passed by the Additional collector was set aside. A liberty was granted to all the parties, to raise all the pleas, including maintainability of the appeal, in the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer itself. The order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9490/2003 has been appended as Annexure P/4-A with the petition.