NARAIN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The agricultural loan to the tune of Rs. 98,000/- was taken by respondent No. 4, the loanee for purchase of tractor in the year 1986. Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated by respondent-Bank for recovery of the loan amount with interest. It appears that during pendency of the recovery proceedings the loanee deposited certain amount of loan with the Bank and the recovery proceedings were postponed from time to time. Ultimately the auction proceedings took place on 31st March, 1994. The petitioner, been highest bidder, initially deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and remaining amount was deposited on 29.04.1994. Before any order of possession could be passed in favour of the petitioner the loanee filed his objections before the S.D.O. Concerned with an averment that he is prepared to deposit the entire loan amount with interest if due drawn statement is provided by the Bank. The objections were rejected by the S.D.O. concerned vide order dated 27.06.1994. Challenging the above order dated 27.06.1994 the loanee filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ajmer. During pendency of the appeal a formal decree was passed by the S.D.O. concerned in favour of the petitioner-auction purchaser on 14.09.1994. The appellate authority, while allowing the appeal filed by the loanee vide order dated 16.02.1996, set aside the order dated 27.06.1994 passed by the S.D.O. Concerned. Setting aside the auction made in favour of the petitioner the Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to the S.D.O. concerned to initiate auction proceedings afresh in accordance with law. As has come on record, after judgment of the Appellate Authority, the loanee also satisfied the entire loan amount with interest. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, also submitted that the amount deposited by the petitioner had been returned to the S.D.O. concerned by the Bank on 04.10.1996. Subsequently, the possession of the land in question has also been handed over to the loanee way back in the year 1996 itself. The order dated 16.02.1996 passed by the appellate authority is under challenge in the present writ petition with the contention that after finalization of the bid the action purchaser gets a vested right of possession of the land in question. Subsequent satisfaction of loan amount by the loanee is irrelevant.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties I have carefully gone through the material on record.

(3.) The facts mentioned above more or less are not disputed. The agricultural loan was taken for purchase of a tractor. As per the loan agreement both the tractor as also immovable property were hypothecated with the Bank for realization of the loan amount. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the tractor for which the loan was taken had ever been put to auction prior to auctioning the immovable property itself. Time and again this court as also Apex Court have held that in such matters the prime consideration should be interest of the agriculturist. The loan should be recovered form the movable property first and the immovable property should be put to auction at the last resort. The intention of the loanee has also to be seen. In case the loanee is prepared to satisfy the entire loan, the Bank and the Authorities concerned should act sympathetically so that an agriculturist may not be made landless. For an agriculturist the land is only a bread earner and source of survival. In the present case, without auctioning the tractor the entire land of the loanee has been put to auction without following due process of law, in spite of a request made by the loanee to deposit the balance amount as per statement to be given by the Bank.