Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Ms. Anushka Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State as well as Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4A. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 15.06.2010 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh, Co-operative Department in Revision Case No.78/26/2008 as also the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh in Second Appeal Case No.77(2)(1)49/07 as well as order dated 15.09.2007 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh in Appeal Case No.77(1)358/R/04, by which the auction sale was declared to be illegal. The petitioner is auction purchaser of the land. The land was auctioned due to non-payment of the loan by the original owner, namely Mohan. 3. The petitioner while challenging the aforesaid orders has sought for following relief(s) :- “1] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order dated 15.06.2010 (Annex.P-1), 23.09.2008 (Annex.P-2) & 15.09.2007 (Annex.P-3) in the interest of justice. 2] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Brief facts for disposal of the instant writ petition are that, one Mohan S/o Bhagirathi was the original owner of the land bearing Khasra No.126, 170, 252 situated at Village Bardih, District Raipur. Mohan has taken a loan from the Co-operative Societies, however, when the loan amount was not repaid by him, the Co-operative Societies has auctioned the property in order to recover the loan amount only on 16.03.1969, which the petitioner has purchased. Sale certificate dated 27.05.1969 was also issued in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner got his name mutated in the revenue records. The said Mohan, who was original owner of the property and who has taken loan from the Co-operative Society was issue-less, as such, no one has objected either in the auction proceeding or during the course of passing of sale certificate even in the mutation proceedings. The said Mohan, who was original owner of the property and who has taken loan from the Co-operative Society was issue-less, as such, no one has objected either in the auction proceeding or during the course of passing of sale certificate even in the mutation proceedings. After 7 years of the proceedings, one Girja Bai, D/o Chamar Rai has moved an application before Tahsildar, Raipur for mutation of her name in place of Late Mohan claiming herself to be cousin sister of Late Mohan. 5. When the father of petitioners, namely, Radheshyam came to know about the mutation proceedings, he raised an objection upon the application preferred by Girja Bai only on 10.12.1975 alleging therein that he has purchased the suit property in an auction sale proceedings and got his name mutated after following due procedure of law, as such, application preferred by Girja Bai be dismissed. The Tahsildar dismissed the application preferred by Girja Bai and has mutated the name of Radheshyam holding that if Girja Bai is aggrieved by auction sale proceedings, she should have challenged the same by filing appropriate application. 6. Against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Girja Bai moved an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, who in turn, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.05.1980, affirming the order of Tahsildar stating that order of recovery proceedings dated 27.05.1968 has attained its finality. 7. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Raipur. The Commissioner, Raipur allowed the appeal preferred by Girja Bai vide order dated 19.08.1982 holding that Recovery Officer has not followed the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and has auctioned the property in question without giving notice to legal representatives of Late Mohan (original owner of the property). 8. Against the order passed by the Commissioner, a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior by Late Radheshyam. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision vide order dated 11.03.1985 upholding the order passed by the Commissioner, in which, the Commissioner has held that loan amount due against Mohan was only of Rs.121.75, whereas in the auction, land admeasuing 2.85 acre has been sold, which was valued at that time to the tune of Rs.3,000/- as such, the auction sale was not in accordance with law. The Board of Revenue is of the view that the Commissioner was having no power and authority to examine the case in respect of auction. The parties should have approached before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, upon which, the legal representative of Girja Bai have instituted a case before Registrar, Co-operative Societies while challenging the order of auction sale in favour of Late Radheshyam. 9. During the aforesaid proceedings, original auction purchaser i.e. Radheshyam has expired, as such, his sons were made as party and they have contested the proceedings before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. 10. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies after hearing the parties held that the matter is required to be adjudicated by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur, who in turn, is required to give proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and after following due process of law, shall pass appropriate order within a period of three months. 11. After remand of the matter by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, legal representatives of Girja Bai approached before the Joint Registrar, who in turn, after following due procedure of law decided the matter vide order dated 08.12.2004 whereby the sale certificate dated 27.05.1969 issued by the Recovery Officer was set aside. 12. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Joint Registrar, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner stating that auction and sale certificate was not challenged by any of the parties and after a very belated stage, it has been challenged by the persons, who are not related to Late Mohan, i.e. original owner of the property. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.09.2007, affirming the order of Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies. Against the order passed by the Registrar, a second appeal was preferred before the State of Chhattisgarh, Co-operative Department, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2008. 13. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe along with Ms. Anushka Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order impugned passed by the State Government is not in accordance with law. Against the order passed by the Registrar, a second appeal was preferred before the State of Chhattisgarh, Co-operative Department, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2008. 13. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe along with Ms. Anushka Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order impugned passed by the State Government is not in accordance with law. They would further submit that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies as well as Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies have failed to consider the fact that original land owner has not challenged the auction proceedings as well as sale certificate issued by the Recovery Officer, Co-operative Societies during his lifetime and after 7 years of his death, distant relative has challenged the mutation proceedings as Late Mohan was issue- less. It has been contended that according to Rules 66(4)(5) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (for shot, Rules of 1962’), after auction of the property, objections were invited and thereafter, sale certificate was issued on 27.05.1969. However, no objection was ever raised by any of the parties including Late Mohan, who was original owner of the property. It has been further contended that after issuance of notice, sale certificate was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1962, as such, it cannot be declared as null and void. It has been submitted that upon institution of mutation proceedings by Girja Bai, the same has been dismissed by the Tahsildar holding therein that no objection whatsoever was raised in the auction proceedings, as such, it has attained finality. It has been further submitted that since the original land owner i.e. Late Mohan has not raised any objection during his lifetime, hence, the respondent No.4A, who is relative of Late Mohan was stopped from raising objection as enumerated under the principle of estoppel. It has been further argued that there is serious dispute regarding status of Girja Bai, who was claiming herself to be cousin/legal representative of Late Mohan. Late Radheshyam was in possession of property in question after purchase of the same in auction proceedings from the year 1969, which was not objected by the original owner, as such, it cannot be challenge by the so-called remote relative of Late Mohan. Therefore, impugned orders are per se illegal as it has been passed without application of mind and same are liable to be set-aside. Therefore, impugned orders are per se illegal as it has been passed without application of mind and same are liable to be set-aside. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy and another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 241 . 14. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State supported the impugned orders passed by the respective Co-operative Societies while submitting that there is concurrent findings recorded by the Revenue Courts, which cannot be interfered with by this Court. 15. Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4A would oppose the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that a well reasoned order has been passed by respondent No.1, which is not required to be interfered with by this Court. He further submits that three concurrent orders have been passed against the petitioners, which cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. It has been contended that Late Mohan has taken a very meagre amount of loan in his lifetime, for that, Co-operative Societies has auctioned the entire property of Late Mohan, which amounting to Rs.3,000/- at the time of auction proceedings. In fact, a serious illegality has been committed by the Recovery Officer in auctioning the property and issuing sale certificate in favour of Radheshyam. It has been further submitted that the sale certificate has been issued excessive of the loan amount taken by fore-fathers of the petitioners, as such, the sale certificate as well as auction proceedings initiated against the petitioners are against the law and the concurrent finding recorded by the three Courts below are not required to be interfered with. 16. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and considered their rival submission made herein and gone through the record thoroughly and extensively. 17. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce Rule 66(4)(5) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, which are as follows:- “ 66. 16. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and considered their rival submission made herein and gone through the record thoroughly and extensively. 17. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce Rule 66(4)(5) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, which are as follows:- “ 66. Attachment and sale of immovable property .- x x x x x x (4) (i) Where immovable property has been sold by the Sale Officer, any person either owning such property or holding an interest therein virtue of a title acquired before such sale may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing with the Recovery Officer- (a) for payment to the purchaser a sum equal to five percent of the purchase money; and (b) for payment to the decree-holder, the amount of arrears specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered together with interest thereon and the expenses of attachment, if any, and sale and other costs due in respect of such amount, less amount which may, since the date of such proclamation, have been received by the decree-holder. (ii) If such deposit and application are made within thirty days from the date of sale, the Recovery Officer shall pass an order setting aside the sale and shall repay to the purchaser, the purchase money so far as it has been deposited with the five percent deposited by the applicant:Provided that, if more persons than one have made deposit and application under this sub-rule, the application of the first depositor to the Recovery Officer, shall be accepted; (iii) If a person applies under sub-rule (5) to set aside the sale of immovable property, he shall not be entitled to make an application under this sub-rule. (5) (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale of immovable property, the decree-holder or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of the assets or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting it: Provided that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud unless the Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity, mistake or fraud. (ii) If the application be allowed, the Recovery Officer shall set aside the sale and may direct a fresh one.” 18. In case of H.S. Goutham (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus :- “34. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, more particularly, Order 21 Rule 92 read with Order 21 Rule 94, once the sale is confirmed and the sale certificate has been issued in favour of the purchaser, the same shall become final. 36. As per the settled principle of law, when the fraud is alleged the same is required to be pleaded and established by leading evidence. Mere allegation that there was a fraud is not sufficient. Therefore, subsequent order passed by the High Court calling for the report from the learned Principal City Civil Judge on the question whether the decree was obtained by fraud or not, can be said to be giving an opportunity to the judgment debtors to fill in the lacuna. Therefore, the course adopted by the High Court calling for the report from the learned Principal City Civil Judge cannot be approved.” 19. From the impugned order, it seems that Late Mohan has taken a very meagre amount of loan amounting to Rs.121.75, however, upon repay of said loan, entire property of Mohan worth Rs.3,000/- at that relevant of point of time, i.e. in the year 1969 was auctioned and sale certificate was issued by the Recovery Officer of the Co-operative Societies. From the impugned order, it seems that Late Mohan has taken a very meagre amount of loan amounting to Rs.121.75, however, upon repay of said loan, entire property of Mohan worth Rs.3,000/- at that relevant of point of time, i.e. in the year 1969 was auctioned and sale certificate was issued by the Recovery Officer of the Co-operative Societies. It further seems that due to illiteracy, auction proceedings and issuance of sale certificate was not came into knowledge of original land owner of property and as decided by three Courts below, there seems to be connivance between the Co-operative Societies with the auction purchaser. 20. From perusal of the findings recorded in the impugned order, it transpires that behind the back of Late Mohan, award has been passed and sale certificate has been issued. It has been further reflects that no proper procedure was followed as neither any notice was issued nor Rules 66(4)(5) of the Rules, 1962 has been followed in its true perspective. 21. Insofar as the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H.S. Goutham (supra), the said case is on the different footing and is entirely different from the instant case. The said case is of no help to the petitioners. 22. The rule of “Damdupat” applies to cases where a loan is advanced. The said rule is very clear from the Colebrooke's Digest on “Hindu Law”. 23. Part I, Vol. I, of the Digest deals with Contracts. Book I of this Part deals with Loans and Payment. Section I of Chapter I of Book I deals with Loans in General and describes what may or may not be loaned by whom, to whom and in what form, with the rules for delivery and receipt. These matters are comprised under the title "Loans delivered (rinadana)", which means the complete delivery of a loan or debt by whom, where and to whom made. Chapter II deals with Interest and states at the commencement of Section I :- “Such interest, as may be taken without a breach of duty on the part of the creditor, is a rule (dherma) for delivery by the creditor. Or for it is the nature of a loan, that it should produce to the lender the principal sum advanced, and interest in addition thereto." 24. Or for it is the nature of a loan, that it should produce to the lender the principal sum advanced, and interest in addition thereto." 24. The various Articles in this Section use the expressions "creditor", "render", "loan", "principal", "lent", "borrowers" and thus make it amply clear that it deals with interest on the amounts advanced by a creditor to a debtor. Section I of the Digest deals with the rates of interest to be charged. Section II deals with Special Forms of Interest. Para 53 thereof states :- "Interest on money, received at once, not year by year, month by month, or day by day, as it ought, must never be more than enough to double the debt, that is, more than the amount of the principal paid at the same time." 25. Section III of the Digest deals with Interest Specially Authorized and Specially Prohibited. Article II of this Section deals with Limits of Interest. Para 59 thereof states :- "The principal can only be doubled by length of time, after which interest ceases." 26. The limit of interest is different under other paragraphs for loans advanced in different circumstances. Para 61 repeats what has been stated in para 53 of Section II of the Digest and adds a special rule to the effect :- "On grain, on fruit, on wool or hair, on beasts of burden, lent to be paid in the same kind of equal value, it must not be more than enough to make the debt quintuple." 27. It is therefore clear, as stated earlier, that the rule of Damdupat applies in respect of interest due on amounts lent by a creditor to the borrower, the debtor. 28. If I shall examine the case in the light of rule of “Damdupat”, which is clear from Colebrooke's Digest on Hindu Law, the principle of damdupat is directly applicable in the instant case. One cannot auction the property, which is very much valued from the amount of loan taken by the loanee. An illiterate loanee has been made victim of the Co-operative Societies and for a very meagre amount of Rs.121.75, a property worth Rs.3,000/- in the year 1969 has been auctioned without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the original owner of the land. 29. An illiterate loanee has been made victim of the Co-operative Societies and for a very meagre amount of Rs.121.75, a property worth Rs.3,000/- in the year 1969 has been auctioned without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the original owner of the land. 29. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find present to be a fit case to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. In the result, I do not find any tenable ground to grant relief as sought for by the petitioners in the instant petition. Ex-consequenti, the writ petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost(s).