Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 896 (RAJ)

Harjeet Singh v. Authorised Officer (S. D. O. )

1998-08-19

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH

body1998
Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners. (2). By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 4.1.1989(Ex.5) passed by the non-petitioner No.1 may kindly be quashed and the proceedings by the non-petitioner No.1 in Case No.21/85 may kindly be set aside and any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which the circumstances of the case warrant, be issued. (3). It appears that one Hari Singh, non-petitioner No.3, obtained loan from the non-petitioner No.2 namely, State Bank of India (Agricultural Development Branch), Hanumangarh Junction. The mortgage-deed was executed by Hari Singh in favour of the non-petitioner No.2. The amount of loan was not repaid by Hari Singh and, therefore, the non-petitioner No.2 moved an application before the non-petitioner No.1 under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations(Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 to be referred hereinafter as the Act. On the basis of the application filed by the Bank, the proceedings were initiated. The mortgaged land was attached. The petitioner Harjeet Singh, through his counsel, filed objection petition before the Authorised Officer, Hanumangarh. It was alleged in the objection petition that the provisions of the Section 9 and 10 of the Act had not been complied with. It was further alleged in the objection petition that the petitioner and two others had purchased 12 bighas of land through registered sale-deeds da- ted 14.6.1983 and 21.6.1983 respectively after going through the revenue record and on being satisfied that there was nothing in the record to show that Hari Singh had created charge on the land belonging to him. A prayer was made that the land be released from the attachment and the proceedings for recovery of loan by sale of land be dropped. (4). After hearing the petitioner and non-petitioner No.2, the Authorised Officer passed the Order dated 4.1.1989(Ex.5) whereby the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected. (5). Feeling aggrieved by the Order dated 4.1.1989(Ex.5), the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. (6). A perusal of the Order (Ex.5) shows that it had been brought to the notice of the non-petitioner No.1 that petitioners had purchased the land in question through sale-deeds date 14.6.1983 and 21.6.1983 and that they were claiming to be the owners of the land as well as the owners of the crop standing on the field. (6). A perusal of the Order (Ex.5) shows that it had been brought to the notice of the non-petitioner No.1 that petitioners had purchased the land in question through sale-deeds date 14.6.1983 and 21.6.1983 and that they were claiming to be the owners of the land as well as the owners of the crop standing on the field. The objection petition filed by the petitioner Harjeet Singh was founded on the sale- deeds alleged to have been executed by Hari Singh in favour of the petitioners. The non-petitioner No.1, in his Order (Ex.5), did not give any finding whether any rights had accrued to the petitioners under the sale-deeds executed in their favour by Hari Singh. The non-petitioner No.1 has not, in his Order (Ex.5), stated that the petitioners had no right to the land in question or that they had no right to the crop which was standing in the field. In a case like this, it was necessary for the non-petitioner No.1 to have considered whether the objectors, basing their claim on the alleged sale-deeds, had any right in the land in question. Unless the non-petitioner No.1 came to the conclusion that the objectors had no right to land or the crop standing in the field. The objection petition could not be rejected. The principles of natural justice require not only the giving of an opportunity to the party who is likely to be affected by the Order, they further require that all relevant grounds on which the concerned party is basing its claim, either for establishing a right or rebutting a claim, must be taken into account and when necessary, the disputed questions must be decided. (7). For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the non-petitioner No.1 was bound to consider whether the petitioners have or have not acquired any right to the land in question on the basis of sale-deeds executed in their favour by Hari Singh, the borrower of loan from the non-petitioner No.2. Since the non-petitioner No. 1 has not given any finding in this behalf, it must be held that the objection petition filed by petitioner Harjeet Singh has not been properly disposed of. The non-petitioner No.1 has filed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. Since the non-petitioner No. 1 has not given any finding in this behalf, it must be held that the objection petition filed by petitioner Harjeet Singh has not been properly disposed of. The non-petitioner No.1 has filed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. The impugned Order (Ex.5) is liable to be quashed and it is hereby quashed and the non-petitioner No.1 is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and dispose of the objection petition in accordance with law in view of the observations made in this Order. (8). The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.