Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 13 December, 2022
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8918 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Cooperative And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saryu Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjeev Kumar Singh Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Present petition has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondent no. 4 i.e. Branch Manager, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Branch Akbapur, District Ambedkar Nagar to consider/decide representation dated 15.11.2022 moved by the petitioner. It has further been sought to direct the respondent no. 4 to accept the half of the loan recovery amount from the petitioner which was taken by the father of the petitioner namely Late Jagdeesh. It has also been sought to quash the impugned auction notification dated 21.09.2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that father of the petitioner namely Late Jagdeesh had taken a loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- on 19.10.2007. Father of the petitioner expired on 11.01.2013 leaving behind the petitioner and his brother namely Sarvesh (now deceased) as his legal heirs/representatives.
3. The respondent no. 4 has published an auction notice dated 21.09.2022 to recover the loan amount of Rs. 4,98,308/- and the auction of hypothicated land was fixed for 18.11.2022 but it has been postponed.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not dispute the liability of his father but at the same time, it should be divided amongst all the legal heirs of his father. The petitioner alone cannot be compelled to pay the entire outstanding loan amount.
5. It is further submitted that the village of the petitioner was notified under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 and the land, which was hypothicated with the Bank has separately been allocated amongst the petitioner and his brother namely Sarvesh (now deceased). The copy of the Khatauni has been enclosed with the present petition.
6. On the other hand, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has submitted that earlier also the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11238 (M/S) of 2019 taking the same plea that recovery of loan amount should be divided amongst all the legal heirs/representatives of the original loanee and not against the petitioner alone. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court vide its judgment and order dated 19.04.2019 with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order.
7. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 19.04.2019, the representation of the petitioner was decided vide order dated 30.04.2019 directing the petitioner to provide the certificate bifurcating the hypothicated land between the legal heirs of the original loanee and its boundary, issued by the competent authority i.e. S.D.M. The photo-state copy of the letter dated 30.04.2019 has been produced before this Court during the course of argument.
8. It is further submitted that till date the petitioner has not provided any such certificate issued by the competent authority thus, under these compelling circumstances, the hypothicated property was put to auction.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioner to provide the certificate as directed by the respondent Bank vide its order dated 30.04.2019 or any other order/document to establish the bifurcation of the property amongst the legal heirs of the original loanee and thereafter any proceeding of auction may be initiated. He has further submitted that he is ready to pay some part of the half of the amount shown in the auction notice.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that he has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner but the amount shown in the auction notice is not the actual due amount on 21.09.2022 i.e. the date of publication of auction notice. The amount due against the petitioner as on 12.12.2022 is Rs. 7,25,908. It is further submitted that till date only Rs. 1,61,857/- has been deposited.
11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the petitioner is given liberty to comply with the direction given by the respondent Bank vide its order dated 30.04.2019 within a period of two months from today. For the convenience, the copy of the order dated 30.04.2019 is again provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
12. Thereafter, the respondent Bank shall determine and inform the legal heirs/representatives of the original loanee namely late Jagdish Singh including the present petitioner regarding their liabilities within a period of ten days granting sometime for deposition of amount determined. If the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the period determined by the Bank, the respondent Bank shall proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
13. The protection is subject to the condition that the petitioner will pay the one-fourth of the amount shown in the auction notice, which comes to around Rs. 1,25,000/- within a period of seven days from today. If the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within seven days, the respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner.
14. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.12.2022 Ashish