Hazara Singh vs Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd.Rajpura

Pritam Singh Dy.Secy.

The brief facts of the case are that the mother of the petitioner late Smt. Basant Kaur took a loan of Rs. 6,500/ from the RespondentBank by mortgaging her 18 bighas of land with the Bank. She repaid some amount but the balance could not be paid as a result of which the mortgaged land was put to auction by Respondents No. 1 and 2 on 25.10.1979. About 4 bighas of land out of the mortgaged property was given by the mother of the petitioner to Respondent No. 5 by some agreement and this land was not shown to have been mortgaged with the RespondentBank in the revenue record although it was mortgaged with the RespondentBank. This land was also put to auction by Respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 5 filed a petition under Section 16(3) of the Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1957 for setting aside the sale conducted on 25.10.79 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and this petition was disposed of by Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide his orders dated 7.2.1980, set aside the sale and ordered fresh auction within two months after completing formalities. But instead of reauctioning the land as directed by the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in his order dated 7.2.1980, a sale certificate was issued by Respondent No. 2 on 27.5.80 in favour of Respondent No. 5. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking suo motu jurisdiction and praying that the sale certificate issued by Respondent No. 2 on 27.5.80 be set aside.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and that of Respondent No. 5. I have also gone through the relevant record. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the sale was conducted on 25.10.1979 and the auction purchasers were Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 but on the petition of Respondent No 5 the sale was set aside by the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide his order dated 7.2.1980 and it was incumbent on Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to arrange fresh auction as per the procedure laid down in Section 15 of the Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1957. But, Respondent No. 2 did not implement the order of the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 7.2.1980. He has further pointed out that at the time of auction the auction purchasers were Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 but without arranging reauction. Respondent No. 2 issued safe certificate in favour of Respondent No. 5. He has asserted that the sale certificate issued in favour of Respondent No. 5 is illegal as they were never auction purchasers in the sale held on 25.10.79. He has further pointed out that the issuing of sale certificate by Respondent No 2 is in violation of the order of Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 7.2.1980 and, therefore, it is a nullity. Advancing counter arguments counsel for Respondent No. 5 has stated that the present revision is not maintainable because no revisionary powers have been conferred on the Government under the Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1957. In case the petitioner had any grievance then he should have moved an application for setting aside the sale under Section 16(3) or under Section 17 of Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Act, 1957. He has further pointed out that the application of the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Act, was dismissed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, vide his order dated 6th January, 1982. In view of this, the present petition was not maintainable. Replying to the arguments of the counsel for Respondent No. 5, the counsel for the petitioner has stated that Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1957 was only supplementary to the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, and it is not an independent Act therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for invoking suo motu jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Act, is in order. In this connection he has cited the authority of 372 A.I.R. 1983 in Didar Singh v. R.C.S. Punjab. He has further pointed out that no doubt under the Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Act, 1957, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, has been given powers under Section 16(3) of the Act, to hear the objection petition for setting aside the sale but in case a wrong and illegal certificate is issued by the Sales Officer then has no power for setting aside the such sale certificate. He has further argued that the sale certificate has not been confirmed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as required under Section 17(3) of the Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1957 and as the impugned certificate has been issued in violation of the orders passed by the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 7.2.1980 therefore, such an illegal order is liable to be set aside. He has conceded that the application of the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Punjab Land Mortgage Bank Act, 1957 was dismissed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 6.1.1982 yet this does not nullify the directions given by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 7.2.1980 for fresh auction.

I am inclined to agree with the plea made by the counsel for the petitioner. The perusal of the record shows that Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, vide order dated 7.2.1980 had set aside the auction dated 25.10.1979 and had ordered fresh auction. It is strange that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 instead of implementing the orders of the Additional Registrar, dated 7.2.1980 processed to issue the sale certificate dated 27.5.80. It is also surprising that the impugned sale certificate is stated to have been issued as per the decision of Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 7.2.1980. As stated earlier the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had set aside the auction dated 25.10.1979 and no fresh auction was held therefore, the impugned sale certificate could not be issued. It is further surprising that in the auction dated 25.10.1979 the auction purchasers were Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 but the impugned sale certificate on the basis of auction dated 25.10.1979 has been issued in the name of Respondent No. 5 who had themselves challenged the auction dated 25.10.1979 and on their application under Section 16(3) the auction dated 25.10.1979 was set aside by Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, vide his order dated 17.2.1980 and a fresh auction had been ordered by him. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I hold that the said certificate issued on 27.5.1980 of Respondent No. 2 is illegal, null and void. Therefore, I set aside the sale certificate issued on 27.5.1980 by Respondent No. 2 and I further direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed afresh in accordance with the law laid down in Section 15 of the Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1957.

Announced.