LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-329

BHIM SAIN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On April 03, 2019
BHIM SAIN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the auction proceedings carried out on 12/12/2012 (Annexure P-7) by the Sale Officer, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Samana, in pursuance of the auction notice dtd. 5/11/2012 (Annexure P-6), order dtd. 29/7/2013 (Annexure P-8) vide which the revision petition preferred by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar, Patiala, stands dismissed, followed by the challenge before the Special Secretary, Cooperation, Punjab, by filing revision petition, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 28/4/2015 (Annexure P-11).

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the awards, which have been passed against the petitioner are all exparte where, without any evidence, the said awards have come into existence on the arbitration proceedings, which have been initiated by respondent No. 6-The Kakrala Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Kakrala, District Patiala. His further contention is that the auction notice indicated that the recoverable amount was Rs.32,00,325.0045 P, which included Rs.27,47,427.0045 P as principal amount and Rs.4,06,822.00 as interest and Rs.40075.00 as miscellaneous expenses whereas the auction had been carried out for an amount of Rs.1,55,76,659.00, resulting in recovery of an amount, which is much beyond the amount specified in the auction notice and no explanation whatsoever has been given in this regard by the respondents. That apart, he contends that the procedure as prescribed under Sec. 72 (11) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1963 Rules" for holding the auction has not been followed, especially with regard to non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 72(11)(g) of the 1963 Rules, which mandates deposit of 15% of the price of immovable property at the time of purchase of the property. His submission is that the Society has itself purchased the land of the petitioner, which measured 47 kanals 4 marlas, which could not have been done by the Society and in any case since it was a purchaser, it was required to deposit 15% of the price of immovable property, which has not been deposited with Sales Officer and, therefore, the sale is not valid. Contention has also been raised that the execution proceedings, in pursuance whereof the sale of the property of the petitioner has been carried out, are beyond the period of limitation as the awards, which have been passed, were of the year 1999 or prior thereto and period of more than 12 years had expired, it would be hit by the provisions of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Counsel submits that the value of the land of the petitioner was approximately Rs.50.00 lacs per acre and the total value of the land of the petitioner measuring 47 kanals 4 marlas would come to Rs.3.00 crores and, thus, the amount for which the land has been auctioned is much less than its value and, therefore, the same cannot sustain. Prayer has, thus, been made for allowing the writ petition by setting-aside the impugned auction proceedings as well as the subsequent proceedings/orders.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 has asserted that there are 567 awards, which have been passed against the petitioner. Irrespective of the fact that the said awards have been passed exparte but the petitioner having not challenged any of these awards, the same have attained finality and are beyond challenge now.