ORDER : Learned advocate for the petitioner has not pressed the relief as sought for in his petition against the respondents No.2, 3 and 4. 2. By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has requested to prohibit the respondent no.1 from initiating recovery proceedings by way of public auction or sell of the property of the petitioner ie., Shop No. 7/84/39 at Market Yard Becharaji and also, an agricultural land of survey no. 47/2, 112, 168 and 116 of village Kalari Taluka Becharaji Dist Mehsana following the due process of law by fixing the market price of the shop and the agricultural land by the expert valuer and by fixing the up set price of the property. 3. Short facts may be summarised as under: The petitioner was engaged in a business of trading of agricultural products at his trading firm namely Bhagwati Trading Company at Becharaji Market Yard, which is the proprietorship of the petitioner. The petitioner availed the cash credit loan against the goods like Rayada, Jira, Variyali, Arenda etc lying in his godown shop for Rs. 5 lacs in the name of Bhagwati Trading Company and Rs. 5 lacs as the proprietor of the said firm and he had pledged the goods as lien of the respondent no.1 bank as security for repayment of the loan and also mortgaged the said shop of the market yard in addition to agricultural land. The petitioner also issued promissory note, letter of agreement, hypothication of goods of the trading firm and other relevant papers of the loan transaction. Due to some financial constraint, the petitioner suffered a loss in his business and could not repay the said dues of the bank within reasonable time and hence, the respondent no.1 has filed Summary Civil Suit Nos. 223 of 2005 and 224 of 2005 before the learned Board of Nominee’s Court at Mehsana under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and also the attachment before the judgment of the mortgaged properties of shop and agricultural land. That, decree for recovery was passed by the learned Board of Nominee’s at Mehsana on 12.12.2005 against the petitioner for recovery of principal amount with 22% interest with costs. That, decree for recovery was passed by the learned Board of Nominee’s at Mehsana on 12.12.2005 against the petitioner for recovery of principal amount with 22% interest with costs. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 initiated the recovery proceedings by way of taking possession of the shop and agricultural land issuing notice dated 31.12.2012, which was not complied with by the petitioner, and therefore, the respondent bank filed Execution Proceedings under Section 47 and Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the court of learned Civil Judge, Kadi District Mehsana vide Special Execution Application No. 36 of 2009. Thereafter, the execution application was renumbered as Special Darkhast No. 52 of 2013. That, the Executing Court was pleased to hold auction of the said property for recovery of the dues by way of proclamation of sale and auction as the highest offer of Rs. 31,22,000/- as against the market value of shop with godown of two storeyed building. The said auction was cancelled by the court. Thereafter, further proceedings of sell by auction for recovery was also moved by another application vide Exh. 48 which was opposed by the petitioner vide Exh. 51. Vide order dated 25.03.2014, learned Executing Court allowed the sale of proclamation and fixed the auction on 17.04.2014 being proclamation No. 98 of 2014 by fixing the highest price of 26 lakhs on 29.04.2014. The petitioner challenged the highest price of Rs. 26 lakhs in Special Civil Application No. 18866 of 2014 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 4th May 2015 by quashing the recovery proceedings of auction dated 29.04.2014. Thereafter, fresh recovery proceedings were initiated by the respondent no.1 before the learned Executing Court on 19.09.2018 for issuance of proclamation of sale and auction which was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent no.1 had illegally calculated the exorbitant interest at the rate of 22% and also other 3 % interest of the compound nature by way of recovery amount of Rs. 32 lacs as against the principal amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. 3. 32 lacs as against the principal amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. 3. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Board of Nominee by granting unconditional leave to defend and depriving of further remedy of appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal or before this court, petitioner is entitled to be protected against coercive steps of the recovery by public auction of the property owned by the petitioner. It is further submitted that upset price fixed by the court below by passing an order below Exh. 109 Rs. 27,25,000/- was not proper because on earlier occasion of auction valuation of the property was made through valuer by the petitioner was Rs. 46,14,750/-. That, the said property was valued by the Mamltdar at Rs. 24 lacs and there was huge difference between two reports of the valuers. It is further submitted that on an earlier occasion the auction was taken place for consideration of Rs,. 26 lacs but on account of technical reasons it was cancelled by this Court. That price shown in the jantri prepared by the Government would be hastle lesser the market price that upset price fixed by the court as per the report of the valuer was too less than the market price. That, the petitioner may be permitted to sell the property in dispute as provided under Order 21 Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to quash and set aside order dated 23.08.2018 passed below application Ex. 109 in Special Darkhast No. 52 of 2013. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner does not press other reliefs as prayed in the petition. 5. From the other side, learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has supported the order passed by the learned Executing Court below Application Exh. 109. He has also referred valuation report and certificate dated 12th February 2016 issued by Sanjay K. Barot and report dated 28th February 2016 prepared by the valuer of the petitioner. He has further submitted that since the year 2005, the respondent is not in a position to get any fruit of the award passed by the Board of Nominees in their favour. He has further submitted that since the year 2005, the respondent is not in a position to get any fruit of the award passed by the Board of Nominees in their favour. That, in previous occasion also, three times, auctions were carried out but on account of objection raised by the present petitioner, it was not succeeded. That, on 8th May 2014, auction purchaser has deposited 25% of the amount with the Executing Court and further deposited balance amount of Rs. 19,50,000/-. That application Ex. 69 for executing sale deed in favour of the purchaser was also granted on 4th July 2014 and order was passed to issue certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. That, the petitioner with the malafide intention to prolong the executing proceeding filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2014 before the learned District Court, Mehsana wherein auction was cancelled and re-auction was ordered Before that also, an application Ex. 71 was filed by the petitioner which was granted on 14th July 2014. Another application was moved by the auction purchaser vide Ex. 82 for taking possession of the disputed premises which was objected by the petitioner. That, on 15th September 2014, an application was allowed and it was ordered to hand over the possession to the auction purchaser. Thereafter also, on 22nd September 2014, petitioner requested to declare the auction to be ab-initio and void as well as nullity but it was rejected on 14th November 2014. That, after disposal of the SCA 18866 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner, the respondent bank started fresh recovery proceedings before the Executing Court by giving an application Exh. 109 under Order 21 Rule 66(1) for issuance of the proclamation of auction and sale. The Executing court allowed the application vide order 23.08.2018 that disputed property as narrated in exh. 109 a proclamation for auction and sale for the upset value of Rs. 27,25,000/- be published a fresh and on 19.09.2018 be decided as a date of auction. It is further submitted that as the loan was sanctioned in the year 2001 in favour of the petitioner and till date, not a single painee is recovered from the petitioner. That, petitioner is escaping from his liability to repay the dues and on every occasion he is filing false and frivolous applications in order to delay the repayment of dues. That, petitioner is escaping from his liability to repay the dues and on every occasion he is filing false and frivolous applications in order to delay the repayment of dues. That, the order passed by Board of Nominees was never challenged by the petitioner. That, the total dues is Rs. 51,37,960/- from the petitioner. That he is creating hurdle intentionally in action of the property and recovering the dues. As per the report of the Mamlatdar, value of the property is Rs. 24 lacs. However, said report was not considered by the executing court. As upset price as per the value of the property of Rs. 27,25,000/- can be said to be legal and proper. Hence, it was requested that conduct and contention of the petitioner are not bonafide, and therefore, he is not entitled for get any relief as prayed in the petition. Hence, present petition may be dismissed. 6. Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as documents produced on record, it appears that on 12th February 2006, Mr. Sanjay K. Barot, who happens to be government approved valuer, prepared a report of the property in dispute and total value of the property was shown as 11,00,0000/- (Rupees Eleven lacs only). Another report was prepared by the said valuer for the said property ie., double storeyed shop cum office building at shop no. 17, Compound of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Becharaji Gram Panchayat Property No. 7/84/39, Revenue Survey No. 413 of Bechar, At and Post Town Becharaji, Taluka: Bechraji, District: Mehsana. As per his opinion, fair market value of the said property was Rs. 27,25,000/-. Certificate was issued by him on 12th February 2016. 7. It further appears that another government valuer namely Mr. S. K. Patel has assessed the value of the land as Rs. 33,89,750/- , as per his report produced on record. It further appears that three different valuation reports are placed on record. It appears that again the valuation of the property was fixed as Rs. 46,14,750/- whereas Mamlatdar has valued the property as Rs. 24 lacs. Auction on a previous occasion was also taken place for Rs. 26 lacs, which was cancelled as per order passed by this Court. As observed by the court below in the impugned order, the valuation assessed by the Mamlatdar of Rs. 46,14,750/- whereas Mamlatdar has valued the property as Rs. 24 lacs. Auction on a previous occasion was also taken place for Rs. 26 lacs, which was cancelled as per order passed by this Court. As observed by the court below in the impugned order, the valuation assessed by the Mamlatdar of Rs. 24 lacs was on the basis of the Government Jantri which would be lesser price in comparison of the market price. Valuation report prepared through the respondent bank Ex. 114 was of Rs. 27,25,000/- which was prepared considering the government ready reckoner was accepted by the court below fixing upset price of the property. 8. In second proviso inserted by 1976 Amendment Act as settled the question by providing that court is not required to enter in the sale proclamation its own estimate but it required to include the estimate of both the parties. This is also in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of Gajadhar Prasad versus Babu Bhakta Ratan and Others, reported in AIR 1973 PAGE 2593. The value as stated by either or both the parties is incorporating in the order. Omission to insert both estimates may be material irregularities and under valuation or misstatement would not material irregularities. Clause (e) is intended to cover the matter other than the market value. The obligation is to stake the valuation given by the decree holder and the judgment debtor but the court has no obligation to notify an upset price of its own, though it has discretion to do so in proper cases. In a case where there is sufficient material on record to arrive at figure of upset price, there is enough power to the court make a summary inquiry. Here, in the instant case, three reports were available with the court to fix the upset price. Valuation report prepared by the Mamaltdar was not considered by the court below observing that it was prepared on the basis of the Government jantri which would be lesser than the market price. The valuation report prepared by the respondent was considered as it was prepared by considering the Government Ready Reckoner. Other valuation report prepared by the petitioner was not considered by the court below. After all, this was of the upset market price fixed at this juncture, which cannot be said to be final price of the property. The valuation report prepared by the respondent was considered as it was prepared by considering the Government Ready Reckoner. Other valuation report prepared by the petitioner was not considered by the court below. After all, this was of the upset market price fixed at this juncture, which cannot be said to be final price of the property. From the order and the reasons passed by the Executing Court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. There is no substance for interfering in the impugned order passed below application Exh. 109. 9. From the proceedings initiated by the petitioner and objections, time to time, raised appears to be hurdled in executing Proceedings for recovering the amount from the petitioner, however, award was passed long back in Summary Suit No. 224 of 2005 by the Board of Nominees. 10. Present petition stands dismissed. The impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed below application Exh. 109 in Special Execution No. 52 of 2013 stands confirmed.