JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a poor agriculturist. He has become victim of circumstances. He took a loan of Rs. 1,12,000/- from the respondent No. 2 Bank of Baroda for purchasing tractor and trolley on 23.12.88. In turn, he deposited Rs. 25,000/- with the respondent Bank which is still lying with it. According to him, on 12 different dates, he deposited different amounts making total amount of Rs. 1,50,886/-. His only source of livelihood was agricultural operations. 2. The respondent Bank moved an application under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (for short `the Act') before the S.D.O., Shahpura -Prescribed Authority under the Act i.e. respondent No. 1. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the said application was decided by the respondent No. 1 ex-parte on 22.5.1996 (Annex. 2). In pursuance of that order Annex. 2, the S.D.O. issued proclaimation of sale on 26.11.97 (Annex. 3) regarding agricultural land of the petitioner. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Samdariya for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had deposited almost Rs. 1,50,886/-towards the loan of Rs. 1,12,000/- yet the respondent Bank wrongly debited the account of the petitioner and by calculating the quarterly compound interest, huge demand was made from the petitioner. He submitted that if he was given an opportunity by the S.D.O., then the petitioner could have pointed out all these things. 5. From the impugned order at Annex. 2, it is clear that the petitioner was not duly served with the notice by the respondent No. 1 before he passed the impugned order at Annex. 2 which is clear from the impugned order Annex. 2 itself, therefore, learned counsel Mr. Chanda for the respondent Bank was also not in a position to support that order. 6. Once it is found that the impugned order at Annex. 2 is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, then there is no alternative for this Court but to quash it and accordingly, it is quashed and set-aside. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, the impugned order at Annex. 2 is hereby quashed and set-aside. Once the impugned order at Annex. 2 is quashed and set-aside, the proclamations of sale at Annex. 3 is also required to be quashed and set-aside and accordingly, the same is quashed and set-aside. 8. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, the impugned order at Annex. 2 is hereby quashed and set-aside. Once the impugned order at Annex. 2 is quashed and set-aside, the proclamations of sale at Annex. 3 is also required to be quashed and set-aside and accordingly, the same is quashed and set-aside. 8. It is made clear that the respondent No. 1 is at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law but only after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. With these observations, this petition is allowed.Writ Petition allowed. *******