Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 366 (UTT)

VIKRAM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2013-06-23

Rajesh Tandon

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27th January, 2006 passed by respondent no.2 in Misc. Appeal No. 7/2003- 04 Vikram Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition). 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 17,000/- from the Punjab National Bank Civil Lines, Roorkee, on 20.11.1979 for running the Flour Mill, but due to some reasons, the petitioner could not repay the loan amount and on 26.10.1993, a recovery certificate was issued against the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the flour mill of the petitioner was auctioned by the Tehsildar, but the amount could not be repaid by the aforesaid auction and the balance amount was Rs. 93,158.26 and the proceedings for recovery of the amount were initiated against the petitioner for recovery by selling his immovable property by S.D.M. Roorkee and the proceedings for auction of immovable property was started and on 27.09.1996, the property was auctioned, however the same was cancelled. 5. Thereafter, the property was auctioned on 13.01.1998 bearing Plot No. 153 area 1.767 Hect. At Village Dhanendra was auctioned for Rs. 11,42,000/- in favour of Sri Devraj Singh. 6. Thereafter the petitioner preferred objections against the said auction dated 13.01.1998 before the Commissioner Saharanpur Mandal Saharanpur on 17.09.1998 and the proceedings were stayed. 7. In the meantime, in the year, 2000 State of Uttaranchal was formed, the objections filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner Garhwal Mandal were not transferred to the respondent no.2, when the petitioner inquired about his file before the Commissioner Saharanpur Mandal Saharanpur, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that record of his file has weeded out. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an objection under Rule 285 (1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act before the Court of Respondent No. 2 on 23.10.2003 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the objection was dismissed. 9. Counsel for the respondent Sri Lok Pal Singh has submitted that for the same cause of action, a suit has already been filed by the petitioner being Suit No. 79 of 2002. 10. However, the objection was dismissed. 9. Counsel for the respondent Sri Lok Pal Singh has submitted that for the same cause of action, a suit has already been filed by the petitioner being Suit No. 79 of 2002. 10. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is not maintainable as the same relief has been claimed in the suit itself. 11. The petitioner has prayed that a direction may be made for expeditious disposal of the suit. 12. However, the Civil Judge is directed to expedite the Suit No. 79 of 2002 preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. 13. Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy having been availed by the petitioner. 14. No order as to costs.