Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1003 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-29

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The case comes up on an application (01/22) for preponement of the date. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and disposed of finally today itself. 4. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- i. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the entire auction proceedings of the lands of Khasra No.-803 & 805 (petitioner's agricultural land), in pursuance to auction notice (Annexure-3) and auction notice dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure-4) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed & set aside. ii. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, if any consequential order is passed in pursuance to auction notice (Annexure-3) and auction notice dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure-4) then same may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and aside. iii. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem just fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioners. iv. Costs of writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioners". 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners were ready and willing to deposit the outstanding loan amount in respondent/bank, this Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners passed the following order on 14/09/2019:- "Mr. Bhaiya, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' agricultural land ad- measuring 1.78 hectares of Khasra No.803 & 805 in Village Guda Kallan was put to auction on 16.09.2019 and respondent No.4, having offered the highest bid, was declared as successful. However, on 16.10.2019 the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.6 lacs, well within 30 days of the sale and as such, the Collector is/was required to set aside the sale in favour of respondent No.4. He, however, asserts that notwithstanding the clear legal position, the respondents are going to confirm the sale in favour of respondent No.4 and issue sale certificate. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within six weeks. Meanwhile, the respondents shall not issue sale certificate in favour of respondent No.4 and in case, the same has been issued, the same shall not be proceeded any further". 6. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within six weeks. Meanwhile, the respondents shall not issue sale certificate in favour of respondent No.4 and in case, the same has been issued, the same shall not be proceeded any further". 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/bank Shri Naresh Prajapat submits that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 14/11/2019, the petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.6 lacs with the bank but the same was deposited in the saving bank account of the petitioners. He submits that the amount so deposited has already been withdrawn and a statement to that effect has been shown before this Court which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent/bank, therefore, submits that the petitioners have not even complied with the directions issued by this Court on 14/11/2019 and have rather misused the order by depositing the amount of Rs.6 lacs in their own saving bank account. He, therefore, prays that the auction proceedings undertaken by the respondent/bank on 16/09/2019 may be confirmed and the amount due to the bank may also be permitted to be recovered. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the order dated 14/11/2019 passed by this Court. 8. It is noted that since the amount due to the bank was not deposited by the petitioners, therefore, one opportunity was granted to the petitioners to deposit the said amount. However, the petitioners instead of availing the opportunity granted by this Court vide order dated 14/11/2019 have rather misused it by depositing the amount in their own saving bank account and that too the amount so deposited was withdrawn. 9. In these circumstances, the auction proceedings undertaken by the bank for the recovery of the amount due are not required to be interfered with and the auction proceedings dated 16/09/2019 are confirmed. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is devoid of force and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 11. The stay application and other pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.