MEGH RAJ Vs. AMBALA KURUKSHETRA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)- cum-Collector, Jagadhari. The facts necessary to be noticed here are available in the impugned order itself.

(2.) Megh Raj petitioner did not repay the loan availed by him from Ambala Kurukshetra Gramin Bank (for short, "the Gramin Bank") regarding which, the Gramin Bank had filed suit for recovery under the provisions of section 8(1) of Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act"). The proceedings were initiated against Sahib Singh along with Megh Raj. Smt. Renu Phulia, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jagadhri passed an order dated 8.7.2003 against Megh Raj as he had not shown his readiness to pay the loan amount. It was noticed by her that with a view to avoid payment of the dues and delay the court proceedings, he had not cared to appear in the proceedings and had been proceeded against ex-parte. Vide order dated 8.7.2003, the petitioner was directed to make payment of the balance loan amount within a period of one month. It was also ordered that on his failure to pay the balance loan amount within the time given, the amount was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner and Sahib Singh failed to comply with the aforesaid order and, therefore, the Gramin Bank got the land of the petitioner attached, which was consequently sold.

(3.) Sale certificate was to be issued with regard to the said auction, but the petitioner Megh Raj filed objections on 13.3.2008 with an application for condonation of delay. He claimed that the order passed by Smt. Renu Phullia on 8.7.2003 was not legally tenable because for getting the loan amount declared as land revenue, the same was to be sent to the Collector, Yamuna Nagar but Smt. Renu Phullia, without any intimation to the petitioner, directed Naib Tehsildar, Jagadhri to auction the land of the petitioner. He has claimed that his land measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas was sold for a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and, thus, loss has been caused to him. He has claimed that he had paid a sum of Rs. 63,000/- to the Gramin Bank and the Bank was not entitled to charge interest at a rate more than 6 per cent per annum. The auction conducted was, therefore, challenged as baseless and unjustified. He prayed for setting aside the sale and has prayed for withdrawal of the sale certificate.