K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this petition has come up for orders on I. A. II filed by the petitioner, it is heard for final disposal as it can be disposed of on a short ground. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :" (A) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned public auction notice dated 2-3-1989 and the individual notice in form No. 9 in No. 1100-5/88-89 iisuod by the land valuation officer- cum-salo officer, P. C. A. And R. D. Bank Ltd. Harapanahalli (1st respondent) and the assistant registrar of co-operative societies. Hospet sub-division, hospet (3rd respondent) respectively produced at Annexure G and H in so far as the sy. No. 321-a measuring 4 acres 61 cents of kadabageri village belongs to the petitioner. (b) a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 3 to withhold from selling the land in sy. No. 321-a measuring 4 acres 61 cents of kadabageri village belongs to the petitioner at the public auction on 29-5-1989 as per Annexure-G and further to permit the petitioner to participate in the public auction on 29-5-1989 to purchase the other sy. No, 321-b belongs to the 2nd respondent and to deposit sale proceeds. (c) further to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to proceed with the public auction of sale in respect of sy. No. 231-b only instead of sy. No. 231-a as the sale proceeds would be sufficient to meet the dues under execution in e. P 75/88-89. (d) such other order or direction as deemed fit under the circumstances of the case may be passed by this Hon'ble court and further to allow this writ petition with costs," ( 3 ) THE facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the contentions raised on either side are as follows : the 2nd respondent mortgaged the lands in question bearing S. No. 321-b measuring 3 acres 84 cents and S. No. 321 a measuring 4 acres 61 cents, to the Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Harapanahalli. The 2nd respondent did not pay the amount. The 2nd respondent did not pay the amount. The bank raised a dispute against the 2nd respondent and obtained an award for a sum of Rs. 16,236/- on 29-1-1988. (view of the fact that the aforesaid two lands were mortgaged, the award created charge on both the lands for the satisfaction of the amount due under the award, as such the lands were liable to be sold to satisfy the award. The bank sued out execution under the Provisions of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and brought the two lands for sale under the sale proclamation dated 2-5-1989 produced as Annexure-G. The sale was fixed on 29-5-1989. ( 4 ) BEFORE further facts are stated, it is also necessary to mention that the case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the land bearing S. No. 321-a measuring 4 acres 61 cents from the 2nd respondent under a registered sale deed dated -9-1980 as such the land bearing S. No. 321-a of kadabagere village is not liable to be sold in execution of the award obtained against the 2nd respondent. On the contrary, the case of the 2nd respondent as revealed in the statement of objections filed in the writ petition is that the alleged sale deed dated 3-9-1980 was nominal and he continued to remain in actual physical possession of the land bearing S. No. 221-a of kadabagere village. It is not necessary to go into this question because this is not the forum to decide as to whether the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was nominal or real. ( 5 ) IT is necessary to mention here that aggrieved by the sale proclamation dated 2-5-1989 Annexure-G , the petitioner invoked the Provisions of Rule 41 of the Karnataka co operative rules, 1960 (for short the'rules'; and filed an application before the 3rd respondent assistant registrar of co-operative societies, hospet as per Annexure-J contending that the inclusion of S. No. 321-a of kadabagere village purchased by him was not liable to be sold in public auction for recovery of the amount due from the 2nd respondent and the land bearing S. No. 321-b alone should be sold. 11 may also be stated that even prior to 15-5 1989, the petitioner had filed several representations before the 3rd respondent (sale officer) stating that the land bearing S. No. 321-a of kadabagere village was not liable to be sold for the satisfaction of the sum due under the award obtained against the 2nd respondent. The objection filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-J has not so far been decided. In fact, as per Rule 41 of the rules, on receiving such petition, the sale officer was required to investigate the claim made by the petitioner as it related to one of the properties attached and brought for sale ; and pending investigation as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 41, the sale officer was required to postpone the sale also. But nevertheless, the sale officer neither investigated into the claim of the petitioner nor postponed the sale. Therefore, the petitioner approached this court and obtained an interim order on 26-5-1989 to the following effect :"notice re : rule. The first respondent is directed to auction the 2nd item of serial No. 30 of the sale proclamation dated 2-5-1989 I. E. S. No. 321-b (2. 84 cents) in the first instance. If the sale proceeds of the said item is insufficient to cover the amount due (i. e. Rs. 16,236; ), taen only to hold auction of S. No. 321-a (4a-66 cents;. In the second event to withhold confirmation of sale of the said item (i. e. S. No. 321-a) until further orders. "in the light of the aforesaid interim Order, on 29-5-1989, S. No. 321-b alone was sold, wherein the petitioner himself became the highe t bidder having offered a bid for Rs. 18,000/ -. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioner that he has deposited the said amount also. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid Order, the 2nd respondent appeared and at his instance another interim order was passed on 12-6-1989. The said interim order reads :"issue interim stay of confirmation of sale for a period of 4 weeks. Bring up on 10-7-1989 for further orders. Award against r 2 obtained by r-1 to be produced by r-2 by then. "the said interim order is continued until further orders by the order dated 10-7-1989. The said interim order reads :"issue interim stay of confirmation of sale for a period of 4 weeks. Bring up on 10-7-1989 for further orders. Award against r 2 obtained by r-1 to be produced by r-2 by then. "the said interim order is continued until further orders by the order dated 10-7-1989. ( 7 ) THE question for consideration in this case is as to whether this is a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. The fact that the lands in question beariug S. Nos. 321-a and 321-b were mortgaged to the bank and the bank obtained an award by raising a dispute under Section 70 of the act are not in dispute. On the basis of the sale deed dated 3-9-1980, the petitioner has also challenged the attachment and sale proclamation of the land bearing S. No. 321-a measuring 4,61 acres. Rule 41 of the rules reads thus :"41. Investigation of claims to property attached. (1) where any claim is preferred to or any objection is made to the attachment of any property attached under these rules, on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the sale officer shall investigate the claim or objection and make an order either rejecting or allowing the claim and to that extent raising the attachment made : provided that the sale officer may refuse to investigate the claim if he considers that the claim or objection is frivolous or made on or after the date fixed for sale. (2) where the property to which the claim or objection relates has been advertised for sale, the sale officer may postpone the claim or objection. (3) where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit within six months from the date of the order to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive. " ( 8 ) FROM the contents of Rule 41 of the rules, it is clear that there is no option left to the sale officer to refuse to investigate into the claim or objection relating to the properties attached and brought for sale. " ( 8 ) FROM the contents of Rule 41 of the rules, it is clear that there is no option left to the sale officer to refuse to investigate into the claim or objection relating to the properties attached and brought for sale. The sale officer may refuse to investigate the claim only if he considers that the claim or objection is frivolous or made on or after the date fixed for sale. In the instant case, the objections are filed long prior to the date fixed for sale and the petitioner's claim is that he has purchased the land bearing S. No. 321-a of kadabagere village. Therefore, the sale officer was required to investigate into the claim made by the petitioner after notice to the interested persons including the petitioner. In the event, the sale officer either rejects the objections or upholds them, the aggrieved party has a right of suit as provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 41 of the rules. That being the position, it is not at all just and proper for this court in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to investigate into the claim made by the petitioner for which the fules provide a specific remedy with a specific procedure and a specific authority is invested with the jurisdiction. Thereafter, t here is a remedy of suit. Hence, I am of the opinion that this is not a case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the constitution. ( 9 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is as to what should happen to the auction held pursuant to the direction issued by this court on 26-5-1989. In view of what is stated above, it is clear that the sale must fall to the ground as without investigating the claim or objections filed by the petitioner, the sale could not have been held at the time when the interin order dated 26-5-1989 was passed by this court, Rule 41 of the rules had not been brought to the notice of the court. If only Rule 41 was brought to the notice of this court, probably the interim order of the nature could not have been passed. At the most, the sale officer would have been directed to investigate into the claim or objection filed by the petitioner and in the meanwhile to stay the sate. If only Rule 41 was brought to the notice of this court, probably the interim order of the nature could not have been passed. At the most, the sale officer would have been directed to investigate into the claim or objection filed by the petitioner and in the meanwhile to stay the sate. That being the position, the sale held on 29-5 1989 is also required to be set aside. Tt is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms :"the 1st respondent is directed to investigate into the claim or objection filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-J dated 15-5-1989 under Rule 41 of the rules after notice to the petitioner and respondent-2 and also to the bank. Pending investigation, the sale officer is also further directed not to bring the lands in question for sale. All the contentions of both the sides are left open. The 1st respondent is directed so refund the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the sale, in case the petitioner seeks for refund of the same". Order accordingly. --- *** --- .