Ganesh Oil and General Mills and Another vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and Others

B.J. Shethna, J.—The petitioner M/s. Ganesh Oil and General Mills, Hanumangarh road, Srigan-ganagar and its partner Shri Ram Bhaj have filed this writ petition and prayed to issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent No. 1 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and respondent No. 2. Recovery Officer and Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur from auctioning the khatedari land mentioned at para Nos. 3 and 4 of the application. Annexure 1 submitted by the respondent No. 3, Central Bank of India, Sriganganagar for the purpose of recovery of debts of the petitioners.

The petitioners took a loan of huge amount from the respondent No. 3, Central Bank way back on 1-1-1983 by mortgaging its property with the bank. In suit No. 121/95 filed by the bank decree was passed in favour of the bank against the present petitioners for Rs. 1,30,99,003.00, the amount due as on 6-10-1997 with the cost of Rs. 76,950.50 in all Rs. 1,31,75,953.50. The petitioners mortgaged its property with the bank for taking loan amount in 1983. On 14-5-1997 the presiding officer issued recovery certificate. That time the petitioners never raised objection regarding bar of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides that the rights of a tenant in a holding shall not be liable to seizure, attachment or sale by process of any civil Court. According to the petitioners, the land in question was a khudkast irrigated land though situated within the municipal area, but it was never used for industrial purpose. Learned counsel Shri Sharma has raised only one objection regarding bar of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which was also raised before the authority i.e. Debts Recovery Officer, who has also rejected this contention. It may be stated that while mortgaging the property within the bank the petitioners have never stated that it was an agricultural land. Not only that, when the recovery certificate was issued on 14-5-1997 that time also before the presiding officer no such objection was raised. It is only at the fag end this type of objection has been raised, which was not accepted by the Debt Recovery Officer. In order dated 14-5-1997 passed by the presiding officer while issuing the recovery certificate it has been clearly stated that on failure to pay dues within the stipulated period the amount be realised through execution proceedings by sale of mortgaged property. It is pertinent to note that, that order dated 14-5-1997 was never questioned by challenging it before any Court. No such objection was ever raised before presiding officer. Hence, I am of the opinion that in execution proceedings it would not be open to the petitioner to raise such objection.

That apart, when the recovery officer has dealt with this objection regarding bar of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in detail in his order (Annexure 5) for which he has given sound reasons. The law is very clear that a person who does not come with clean hands before the Court will not be entitled for any relief from this Court.

It may also be stated that though there is a bar of seizure, attachment or sale by process of Court u/s 37, but as per foot note of Section 37 of the Act it is stated that said bar is removed u/s 12 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 so far recovery of any financial assistance given by the bank is concerned. Civil Court can attach and sale any land or any interest therein charged or mortgaged to the bank by an agriculturist. Thus, Section 12 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 clearly provides that for recovery of any financial assistance the agricultural land can even be attached and, sold. Debt recovery officer has also relied upon this provision of the Act.

It may be that as per the record it is continuing as an agricultural land, but the fact is that it was an industrial land and it was used for industrial purposes and knowing fully well way back in 1983 the said property was mortgaged with the bank. Now, it cannot be open after so many years for the petitioners to come out with a case that it was an agricultural land.

In view of the above discussion, I do not see any merit or substance in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.

Before parting I must state that Banks are running in losses only because of such type of persons and false and frivolous litigations filed by them. When they need loan they will give any sort of undertaking but when the question of repaying comes they will try to find out any excuse. Under the circumstances, the Court should be very careful and vigilant to entertain such type of petitions. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.