JUDGMENT : 1. The matter is listed in the category of ‘Oldest Cases for early disposal’. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order of attachment Ex.7 may kindly be quashed with all consequential reliefs and all further proceedings in pursuance of the order Ex.7 be quashed. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant be also granted. The costs of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased one agricultural land situated at village Devliyaari Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer bearing Khasra No. 74 from respondent No. 5 Shri Dhan Raj Jain having area of 69 Bigha and 12 Biswas (latest khatoni number being 26) through registered sale deed dated 25.9.1998 (Exhibit-1) for consideration of Rs 2,78,400/-. After the purchase of the land, it had been mutated (Exhibit-2) in the name of the petitioner and khasra Girdawari (Exhibit-3) was also made in the name of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter the petitioner got the information on 19.05.1999 from the News paper Rajasthan Patrika regarding proclamation of sale (Exhibit-5) that his land is being sold in auction by one Advocate Sampat Bothra despite having no case pending against him in the Debts Recovery Tribunal or any other court neither was any notice given to him nor was he party to any proceedings wherein any order was made. Thus he filed a suit for permanent injunction (Exhibit-4) against Shri Sampat Bothra in which summons were served on him but he did not appear in court despite the service and ex parte proceedings were directed to be ordered and stay was granted upto the date 29.05.1999 to not sell or auction the land in question. Thereafter Shri Sampat Bothra put in the appearance through one Shri Vijay Singh Rathore and an application was filed under order 39 Rule 4 of CPC 1908 for vacation of interim order which was allowed by Learned Civil Judge (J.D) Siwana. 4. Thereafter Shri Sampat Bothra put in the appearance through one Shri Vijay Singh Rathore and an application was filed under order 39 Rule 4 of CPC 1908 for vacation of interim order which was allowed by Learned Civil Judge (J.D) Siwana. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner got information regarding other proceedings wherein execution was filed against Shri Dhan Raj Jain and despite the fact that the land was not mortgaged the Recovery Officer passed an order dated 16.09.1998 attaching the agricultural land after the decree dated 18.03.1997 was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT in short) for which notice was never served upon Shri Dhanraj Jain. 5. That from the affidavit of the Bank Manager which was filed before the Civil Judge (J.D) Siwana. the petitioner got the information that the property in question was not mortgaged with the bank but a decree has been passed against Respondent No. 5 Shri Dhan Raj Jain in a case decided on 18.03.1997 and in pursuance of the same, Recovery Officer has passed an attachment order dated 16.09.1998 (Exihibit-7) for attaching the movable property. That the above mentioned order was never served upon Shri Dhan Raj Jain and thus the petitioner received no information. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application dated 02.06.1999 (Exhibit-6) before Civil Court to withdraw the suit filed against Shri Sampat Bothra. The petitioner being aggrieved of the attachment order dated 16.09.1998 (Exihibit-7), prefers this writ petition. 6. At the outset Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection on alternative remedy being available to the petitioner for filing an appeal to appellate tribunal under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 and placed reliance on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.P Vishnu Kumar versus Canara Bank Tiruppur and Ors reported in (2013) 10 SCC 652 ; Punjab National Bank versus O.C Krishnan and Ors reported in (2001) 6 SCC 569 ; State of Uttar Pradesh and Another versus Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and Ors reported in (2008) 12 SCC 675 . 7. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner opposed the same and contended that the present writ petition is maintainable as question of alternate remedy is relevant only at the stage of admission and thus it would not be proper for this Hon’ble Court to reject the writ petition at the final hearing only on the ground of existence of alternative remedy and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court Of Kerala in the case of Tahsildar Pathanapuram versus The Canara bank and Ors reported in (2009) 0 Supreme (Ker) 1138; Union Bank Of India Thodupuzha versus KJ Jose and Ors. reported in 2022 ILR (Ker) 514; and Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of M/S Oshiya Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus Steel Authority Of India Ltd and Another reported in (2016) 0 Supreme (Cal) 732. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser as evident from the sale deed dated 25.09.1998 and the land in question has also been mutated and thus he has the right to enjoy the property and thus nobody can deprive the petitioner of his right of the property vested in him without authority when all the revenue records are in his name. He further stated that the agricultural land was neither mortgaged by shri Dhan Raj Jain but an order of attachment has been passed by the Recovery Officer in pursuance of the decree dated 18.03.1997 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and also stated that Debt Recovery Tribunal is a civil Court and recovery of amount below Rupees 10 lacs is to be made through civil court and recovery of amount above Rupees 10 lacs is to be made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and decree of Debt Recovery Tribunal is a decree of Civil court and Recovery Officer is authorised under Section 25 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993). He also submitted that under section 22(2) Recovery of debts due to banks and financial institution Act 1993 have been deemed to be civil court and proceedings is deemed to be judicial proceedings. He further submitted that as per section 37 of the Rajasthan tenancy Act 1955 agriculture land is neither liable to attachment nor sale by process of any civil court. 9. He further submitted that as per section 37 of the Rajasthan tenancy Act 1955 agriculture land is neither liable to attachment nor sale by process of any civil court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was never party to any legal proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal nor he was impleaded party to the proceedings and the person from whom he purchased the land was the tenant and holding the tenancy right as per the provisions of tenancy laws and he was also not served any notice nor intimated about the legal proceedings and no document is presented with regard to the service and legal proceedings with the reply of the respondents except one letter which does not create any right in favour of he respondent bank. He also submitted that thus objection of the respondent regarding alternative being available to the petitioner is not applicable as the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings nor the loan amount was taken by him. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that section 12 of the Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal Of Difficulties) Act 1974 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1974) provides that so far as recovery of any financial assistance given by the bank is concerned Civil court can attach and sell any land or any interest therein charged or mortgaged to the bank by an agriculturist thus order of attachment and consequential order of sale and proclamation of sale and all the proceedings are void and without jurisdiction as in the present case it is admitted that the land in question is not mortgaged thus as per the above mentioned provision of section 12 of the Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal Of Difficulties) Act 1974, the land of the petitioner cannot be attached. He also submitted that according to the Constitution Of India the agricultural land is subject of State list-II and only State can make any law regarding any subject in the State list under entry No 18 of schedule VII of the Constitution Of India. 11. He also submitted that according to the Constitution Of India the agricultural land is subject of State list-II and only State can make any law regarding any subject in the State list under entry No 18 of schedule VII of the Constitution Of India. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per section 14 of the Act of 1974 it is clear that banks are authorised to get the agricultural land attached and sale only in certain cases where the land has already been mortgaged to them for the purposes of agricultural loan and otherwise there is no such power with Debts Recovery Tribunal to attach and sell the agricultural land. He also contended that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and shri Dhan Raj Jain is not the father in law of the petitioner as he is the brother of his father in law i.e. Shri Sukhan Raj and the petitioner has purchased the land in question for consideration of rupees 2,78,400/-and the land has thereafter been mutated and thus the agricultural land cannot be attached unless the sub registrar or the Tehsildar Siwana is informed of the same because the Tehsildar is the land holder and without making him the party no attachment and sale can be made of the agricultural land because the Tehsildar is functioning on behalf of the State as a landholder. He further submitted that the Act of 1993 is a Central law and cannot exercise powers mentioned in the State list thus the attachment order exhibit 7 is void and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and moreover petitioner has never been informed by the Recovery Officer regarding the attachment and thus the proceedings in pursuance of exhibit 7 are void and without jurisdiction. 12. 12. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondent bank and State Jointly submitted that the attachment order dated 06.09.1997 under the provisions of Debt Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 cannot be challenged by way of writ petition before the Hon’ble Court, and that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the attachment order then there is a remedy available by way of appeal under section 20 of the Act of 1993 to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal thus the writ petition is not maintainable against the attachment order issued by the Recovery Officer Jaipur as the petitioner ought to have exhausted the alternative remedy before approaching the writ jurisdiction. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent bank and State Jointly also submitted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal Jaipur had passed an order dated 18.03.1997 in favour of the bank against Shri Dhan Raj Jain for a sum of rupees 1,16,72,376/-in respect of which certificate dated 18.03.1997 was drawn by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and thus in realization of the decretal amount the Recovery Officer in pursuance of the certificate, issued the order of attachment on 16.09.1998 which was thereafter executed on 23.09.1998 by the Commissioner, Advocate shri Chain Singh Soda. He further submitted that the auction of the property was held on 24.05.1999 and when the proceedings were pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal Jaipur, in order to frustrate the execution proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal the present writ has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with Shri Dhan Raj Jain who is the Judgment Debtor before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and in execution of that decree his land has been attached and auctioned. He also submitted that in order to help the Judgment debtor the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner since the petitioner is a son in law of shri Sukhan Raj Jain who is the real brother of the Judgment Debtor Shri Dhan Raj Jain thus the petitioner has not approached the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has intention to defeat the execution proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser and have purchased the land in a collusive manner from Shri Dhan Raj Jain after the land was attached on 16.09.1998 and thus the sale deed dated 25.09.1998 was executed in a manipulated manner in favour of the petitioner by Shri Dhan Raj Jain who is a close relative of the petitioner and thus the sale deed is a sham transaction between the petitioner and Shri Dhan Raj Jain because the already attached land cannot be sold or cannot be purchased by anyone and thus no one can derive valid title when the attachment of the land in question had been done on 16.09.1998, prior to the transaction of sale deed dated 25.09.1998 which itself was void ab initio wherein no right could be accrued to the petitioner by virtue of such sale deed particularly when such transaction has been made between the petitioner and the judgment debtor who at the time of such transaction had complete knowledge of the fact of attachment order dated 16.09.1998 for the land in question thus the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the attached land was auctioned on 24.05.1999 and final bid was submitted for Rs 3,11,000 by one Joga Ram s/o Shri Prabhu Ji who deposited the sale consideration. He further submitted that the attachment execution dated 23.09.1998 was done in presence of petitioner’s father in law (Shri Sukhan Raj) thus the petitioner had the information of the attachment and thus the petitioner cannot deny that he did not have knowledge of the attachment of the land in question. He also submitted that a suit fir Permanent Injunction before Civil Judge Siwana was filed which was baseless and without jurisdiction, which proves that petitioner wanted to put obstruction in the auction proceedings. The court below also passed an order dated 01.06.1999 vacating the earlier interim order by which the auction proceedings were stayed on an application filed under order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 by shri Sampat Bothra. 16. The court below also passed an order dated 01.06.1999 vacating the earlier interim order by which the auction proceedings were stayed on an application filed under order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 by shri Sampat Bothra. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the attachment order dated 16.09.1998 was passed in a legal manner and the notice was also served however Judgment debtor Shri Dhan Raj Jain was not available at that time thus attachment was made in presence of his real brother Shri Sukhan Raj thus petitioner cannot state that the petitioner did not receive any information regarding the same. He also submitted that under section 25 of the Act of 1993 one of modes of recovery of debts is that the Recovery Officer on receipt of certificate issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal shall proceed to recover the amount of debt by way of attachment and sale of immovable or movable property of the defendant, thus the attachment order dated 16.09.1998 has been rightly passed. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that though the Debt Recovery Tribunal be deemed to be a civil court but it cannot be precluded from attaching the agricultural land in question and further submitted that the recovery certificate issued by the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal was never challenged before court nor any objections were raised before the Presiding Officer of Tribunal by the judgment debtor Shri Dhan Raj Jain. He also submitted that the plea of the petitioner regarding section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 cannot be taken because there is no bar under law that a tribunal cannot make attachment and sale of agricultural land and moreover as the objections were not taken by the judgment debtor against attachment in execution proceedings. He further submitted that as per section 12 of the Act of 1974 the civil court can attach and sell the agricultural land in question when the petitioner took loan of more than 1 crore and did not pay back a single penny to the bank 18. He further submitted that as per section 12 of the Act of 1974 the civil court can attach and sell the agricultural land in question when the petitioner took loan of more than 1 crore and did not pay back a single penny to the bank 18. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that it is immaterial whether the agricultural land was mortgaged with the bank or not as the power to affect attachment and sale of agricultural land by the Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot be curtailed by section 37 of the Act of 1955 and thus all the movable and immovable properties of the defendant borrower can be validly attached and sold away by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and when the borrower himself has not raised any objections, this the present petitioner cannot raise any such objections and moreover only on the basis of a manipulated mutation entry the attachment, auction and thereafter the sale cannot be made void. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner has no right to hold the land in question which has already been attached by the court prior to the sale deed and it has further been put to auction on 24.05.1999 after issuing notices to all the concerned people and the final bid was in favour of one Shri Jaggaram S/o Shri Prabhuji, R/o samdari who had deposited the amount with the bank. 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at the bar. 21. This court observes that learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding alternative remedy being available to the petitioner by way of filing appeal before Appellate Tribunal under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993. 21. This court observes that learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding alternative remedy being available to the petitioner by way of filing appeal before Appellate Tribunal under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993. Undoubtedly the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under Section 20 of the Act of 1993 however this court is not inclined to dismiss the matter on the ground of statutory alternative remedy being available to the petitioner as the matter is pending before this court since 1999 and thus after passage of more than 23 years it would not be in the interest of justice to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority and thus the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent for dismissal of writ petition on the ground of statutory alternative remedy available under section 20 of the Act of 1993 is rejected. 22. This Court further observes that the petitioner had due knowledge of the attachment order dated 16.09.1998 of the land in question as Shri Sukhan Raj who is the father-in-law of the petitioner and real brother of the Judgment debtor i.e Shri Dhan Raj who is respondent No.5 in the writ petition and despite such knowledge the petitioner knowingly purchased the land from the private respondent No.5 and such act of the petitioner and private respondent no.5 reflects that there was connivance between them and with the purpose to frustrate execution proceedings dated 23.09.1998 such transaction of the land in question was made. The petitioner’s father-in-law Shri Sukhan Raj was having full knowledge of the attachment warrant and the proceedings initiated for the land in question as the order executing the attachment warrant dated 23.09.1998 was affixed on the property of private respondent No.5 and on account of his absence it was duly identified by the father-in law of the petitioner as evident from Annexure-R/1 and the same is reproduced here as under:- izsf"kr %& Jheku olwyh vf/kdkjh egksn; + _.kfuokj.k U;k;ky;] t;iqjA egksn;] en;wu /kujkt tSu orZeku es eSlwj dukZVd es jgrk gS] blfy, QkeZ uacj 16 dk pLik en;wu ?kujkt TkSu ds HkkbZ lqdujkt nkWrh dh fu'kkunsgh ij /kujkt tSu dh d`f"k Hkwfe [kljk uEcj 74 ekstk nsoyh ekyh ,o /kujkt tSu dh edku ij fd;k x;k ,oa lqdujkt nkarh ds gLrk{kj crkSj lk{; mDr QkeZ ij djok;sA ,d QkeZ uEcj 16 ckn rkehy lsok es is'k Gsa ,lMh&lqdujkt fuoklh&lenMh] CkkMusj Bw ,lMh & puk lga lksढk] ,MoksdsV 23&9&98 dfe'uj] _.k fuokj.k U;k;ky; t;iqjA 23. This Court also observes that it is writ large that the petitioner cannot be said to be a bonafide purchaser of the land in question on one more ground that the sale deed has been executed between the petitioner and private respondent No.5 on 25.09.1998 ie. after the land was attached vide order dated 16.09.1998 (Exhibit-7). It is a fundamental principle of the law of Transfer of Property that no one can confer a better title than what he himself has (“Nemo dat quod non habet”). The private respondent No.5 did not have the power to sell the property to the petitioner before executing the sale deed as the land in question had already been attached. Therefore, the petitioner could not have derived any valid title to the land in question because the private respondent No.5 himself did not have any title and thus, had nothing to convey to the petitioner except perhaps the litigation. 24. Therefore, the petitioner could not have derived any valid title to the land in question because the private respondent No.5 himself did not have any title and thus, had nothing to convey to the petitioner except perhaps the litigation. 24. This Court also observes that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question was being sold by way of auction which came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 19.05.1999 is not acceptable by a bare perusal of Annexure-R/ 1 it is clear that the petitioner’s father-in-law had complete knowledge of the execution proceedings initiated against the private respondent No.5 of the said land in question and the petitioner being son-in-law of real brother of the private respondent No.5 was thus having knowledge of the execution proceedings initiated against the private respondent, who knowingly purchased the said property in question. Further, in the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not been able to make out the case that the sale deed was entered between the petitioner and the private respondent No.5 prior to the order of attachment and even if the land in question has been mutated in favour of the petitioner then too the petitioner cannot said to be having a right over the said land in question. 25. In view of the above observations, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 26. Amended cause title has been filed which has been taken on record.