JUDGMENT : (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (I) “The issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to place on record order by virtue of which the sale of property in question was made in the year 2014 and its subsequent confirmation vide order dated 01.12.2015 and the auction proceeding dated 31.12.2018 and the same be declared ultra-vires, void or inoperative and against the principles of natural justice for which the petitioner humbly prays. (II) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash order by which the sale of property in question was made in the year 2014 and its subsequent confirmation vide order dated 01.12.2015 and the auction proceeding dated 31.12.2018” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was owner in possession of 04-16-03 bighas of land in Mohal Katipri, VPO Padhar, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. This land was pledged to respondent No.2-Bank. The land was pledged in lieu of a loan of Rs.12 lac which was taken by the petitioner and his father jointly on 01.01.2004 from the respondent-Bank. The loan was raised for the purpose of a construction of a shopping complex. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite the fact that the loan was being repaid from time to time initially, however, subsequently on account of financial hardship, the petitioner was not able to deposit certain installments. Following this, the respondent-Bank started issuing demand notices. These notices were never issued in accordance with law. In terms of Annexure P-1, the land in issue was transferred in favour of the Bank on 01.12.2015, though, father of the petitioner had died on 21.10.2015. This was done at the back of the petitioner. Following this, the property was further put to auction by the respondent-Bank on 31.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a petition under Section 27(3) of the H.P. Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank against the auction proceedings dated 31.12.2018. In terms of order dated 01.04.2019, the petition was dismissed and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayers mentioned hereinabove. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a petition under Section 27(3) of the H.P. Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank against the auction proceedings dated 31.12.2018. In terms of order dated 01.04.2019, the petition was dismissed and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayers mentioned hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire property of the petitioner and his late father was auctioned by the Bank in a surreptitious manner at the back of the petitioner without associating him and as the petitioner was always willing to repay the loan amount, this act of the respondents per se was bad. He further submitted that the Revisional Authority miserably failed to appreciate this extremely important aspect of the matter in terms of the impugned order. 3. Defending the order, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that after availing the loan facility on 01.01.2004 to the tune of Rs.12 lac, the petitioner alongwith his father made repayment to the tune of Rs.1,19,865/- only. Payment of Rs.10,000/- was lastly made on 30.06.2009. As the petitioner miserably failed to repay the loan installments, the Bank was not having an option but to resort to the rights available it under the relevant Act. Sufficient notices were issued to the petitioner as detailed in the reply to make good the loan amount alongwith interest, but as nothing was done, it was in this backdrop that the property was put to auction. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the record of the case as well as the order passed in the petition which is under challenge. 5. The relevant portion of the order, in terms whereof, the petition of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies reads as under:- “I have heard the arguments of parties at length and also perused the record as made available during the course of hearing. I have also examined the matter in the light of HP State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank's Act, 1979. It is undisputed that the Petitioner raised joint loan to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rs. Twelve Lakh Only) in the year 2004 for the purpose of construction of shopping complex. I have also examined the matter in the light of HP State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank's Act, 1979. It is undisputed that the Petitioner raised joint loan to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rs. Twelve Lakh Only) in the year 2004 for the purpose of construction of shopping complex. From the perusal of record of the Bank, it reveals that as per conditions, loan, the petitioner failed to repay the installments of loan within stipulated period, st therefore, the Respondent Bank issued 1 Demand Notice to the Petitioner/ Appellant on 14-12-2004 and subsequent Demand Notices were issued to the petitioner on 25-11-2005,15- 12-2006,21-11-2007, 17-11-2008,15-12-2010, and 26-11-2011. The Petitioner had repaid Rs.119865/- (One Lakh Nineteen Thousand Eight hundred and Sixty Five only) against the total loan of Rs.33,77,793/- (Principal 12,00,000/- and Interest 21,77,793/- in the entire ten years period of the loan. Record further shows that respondent Bank timely issued Demand Notices to the petitioner/appellant with regard to repayment of outstanding loan and overdue installments but the petitioner did not pay any heed to this effect and loan raised by the petitioner became NPA. It is also established fact that while making the sale of the land in question, the Bank issued sale notice 5,6 and 7 as required under the provision of Section 26 and 27 to the petitioner on 25.08.20006, 30.10.2006, 11.12.2007, 30.06.2009, 19.01.2010, 28.06.2010, 31.03.2012, 11.06.2012, 11.01.2013. The Bank afforded ample opportunities to the petitioner before initiating the sale proceedings and transferring the mortgaged land of the appellant in its name. The petitioner had remedy U/s 27(3) of Bank’s Act 1979, if he was aggrieved with the procedure and manner in conducting the sale at the time of Sale of the land in question which he did not avail at that relevant time. From perusal of record it also reveals that the Respondent Bank got the Sale Confirmed from the Registrar Cooperative Societies in consonance with the provisions u/s 28(3) on 01-12-2014. Once, The Sale has been confirmed by the Registrar, it becomes absolute and as such same cannot be questioned by way of provision of Bank’s Act, 1979. The contention of petitioners with the regard to non issuance of notice is untenable, rather the Bank record shows that the Bank had issued various notices to the appellant as mentioned above before initiating sale proceedings. The contention of petitioners with the regard to non issuance of notice is untenable, rather the Bank record shows that the Bank had issued various notices to the appellant as mentioned above before initiating sale proceedings. As per reading of Section 27(3) of Bank’s Act, 1979, The Registrar may set aside a sale on the application of the person creating or executing the Gehan Mortgage or hypothecation or any other person interested in the property to which Gehan/Mortgage relates presented to him within 30 days of the Sale. But in the present case the Sale of the land-in- question took place in the year 2014. Since, then the petitioner never assailed/Challenged such Sale proceedings at that relevant point of time and also as per the Bank's record it is proved that the Respondent Bank becomes owner of the land through Sale on 30-05-2014 and mutation of the land in question was transferred in favour of the bank on 24-12- 2015 vide mutation No. 1091 and it is in the discretion of the Bank to auction its own landed property as per the provision of the Bank's Act 1979. The respondent Bank has even gave chance to the petitioner to liquidate the total loan to the tune of Rs. 54 lakhs at the time of open auction conducted on 31-12-2018, even then, the petitioner did not pay any heed to this effect. It is within the knowledge of the Petitioner, that the Bank initiated steps to auction the property of petitioner from the very beginning and at this stage the petitioner is estopped by his own conduct. In view of the foregoing discussion the petitioner has failed to make out the case in his favour and accordingly the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit and substance. The stay granted on 07.01.2019 stands vacated. The appeal is dismissed in above terms alongwith other miscellaneous application.” 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings returned therein were perverse or not borne out from the record of the case. The stay granted on 07.01.2019 stands vacated. The appeal is dismissed in above terms alongwith other miscellaneous application.” 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings returned therein were perverse or not borne out from the record of the case. Therefore, as it is evident from the record that on one hand the petitioner and his late father miserably failed to repay the loan, in terms of the agreement entered into with the Bank and on the other hand they again failed to do the needful after sufficient notices were issued to them by the respondent-Bank, this Court does not finds any illegality in the act of the respondent-Bank of putting the property to auction or with the order that has been passed by the Revisional Authority. The petitioner having availed the loan, was duty bound to repay the same and as the petitioner failed to repay the loan, but natural, the Bank had the right to recover the same in accordance with law and the same has been duly recovered by the Bank in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, as this Court does not finds any infirmity in the order impugned or any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has deposited certain amount with the Registry of this Court and he be granted liberty to move an appropriate application for withdrawal of the said amount. Liberty as prayed is granted. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.