Karnataka High Court
Shankar Bhairu Bamane vs Syndicate Bank, Manipal, Nipani Branch ... on 30 June, 1998
Equivalent citations: [2001]103COMPCAS303(KAR), ILR1998KAR3028, 1998(5)KARLJ464
Author: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
Bench: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
ORDER
1. This is a judgment-debtor's revision petition, being aggrieved by the order passed rejecting I.A. No. V.
2. The brief facts are as follows: The decree-holder Syndicate Bank filed O.S. No. 66 of 1979 to recover the amount due by the judgment-debtors. The suit was decreed on 31-7-1980. The Bank took out execution to recover the sum of Rs. 5,60,796.52 ps. and sought for the sale of the attached property. When the Bank filed necessary application to bid the mortgaged properties, this revision petitioner judgment-debtor filed I.A. No. V under Order 47, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Sections 114 and 151 of the CPC praying to review the order dated 19-11-1994 against permission granted to the decree-holder to participate in the bid on the ground that Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is a clear bar. The learned Judge of the Court below considering the contentions of the judgment-debtor by his order dated 17-3-1995 dismissed I.A. No. V. Being aggrieved of the said order has now come up with this revision. The first contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner is that granting permission to decree-holder Bank to participate in the bid itself is illegal in view of the clear provisions of Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Further submitted that the scope of Section 80 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act has not been properly considered by the Court below. The second contention is that the Court below has not properly considered the scope of Section 6(f) and (g) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, there is a clear bar to the decree-holder to make a bid in the Court sale. On these grounds prayed to set aside the impugned order passed on I.A. No. V by allowing this revision.
3. Counsel for the decree-holder Bank contended that there is no bar for the Bank to participate in the bid and purchase and acquiring the agricultural lands for the purpose of realising the decretal amount. Further he submitted that Section 81 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, makes clear that the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B and 80 do not apply for the Bankings. Therefore, in order to realise the decretal amount, it is open for the Bank to bid and purchase the secured property which is the property of mortgage in favour of the Bank at the time of securing the loan. He further submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed and therefore prayed to dismiss the revision.
4. It is not in dispute that Ex. P. No. 205 of 1982 was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 5,60,796.52/-. It is also not in dispute that the judgment-debtor has sought for sale of the mortgaged properties in which the Bank has sought permission to purchase the said property in the Court auction. The contention of the learned Counsel that Bank cannot acquire any agricultural properties and that it cannot bid to purchase it in the Court sale and that the decree-holder can only bring the mortgaged property for the sale.
5. Therefore, it has to be examined whether the decree-holder Bank is competent to bid and purchase the property and whether there was any bar as such. Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act reads thus:
"80. Transfer to non-agriculturists barred.--(1) (a) No sale (including sales in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue or for sums recoverable as arrears of land (revenue), gift or exchange or lease of any land or interest therein, or
(b)no mortgage of any land or interest therein, in which the possession of the mortgaged property is delivered to the mortgagee, shall be (lawful) in favour of a person-
(i)who is not an agriculturist, or
(ii)who being an agriculturist holds as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land which exceeds the limits specified in Section 63 or 64; or
(iii)who is not an agricultural labourer";
6. A plain reading of the Section makes clear that in respect of transfer of any agricultural properties in favour of non-agriculturist is a clear bar wherein the non-agriculturist cannot acquire any property against the provisions of law.
7. Section 81 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, reads thus:
"81. Sections 79A, 79B and 80 not to apply in certain cases.--(1) Nothing in Section 79A or Section 79B or Section 80 shall apply to-
(a)the sale, gift or mortgage of any land or interest therein in favour of the Government, (the Karnataka Housing Board constituted under the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 (Karnataka Act No. 10 of 1963), the Industrial Areas Development Board constituted under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka Act No. 18 of 1966), the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board established under the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (Karnataka Act No. 33 of 1974), the Bangalore Development Authority constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1976), a Nagarabhivruddhi Pradhikara constituted under the Karnataka Nagarabhivruddhi Pradhikaragala Adhiniyama, 1987 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of 1987);
(b)the mortgage of any land or interest therein in favour of-
(i)a co-operative society;
(ii)a financial institution".
8. The reading of Section 80 makes it clear that there is no bar for the financial institutions to acquire the agricultural properties. Therefore, in view of the clear provisions of Section 81 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act that the submissions of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner that the Bank cannot bid and purchase the property is without any force. Now coming to the provisions of Section 6(f) and (g) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner that the Bank can only sell the property and cannot acquire any agricultural properties. This submission cannot be accepted in the true meanings of Section 6(f) and (g). In view of the clear provisions of Order 21, Rule 72 wherein the decree-holder can bid and buy the property with the permission of the Court. In the case on hand, the decree-holder has filed necessary application to bid and purchase the property and the said permission has been granted and therefore the submissions of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner that it cannot acquire and purchase the property is not sustainable in law. It is settled principle that in order to realise the decretal amount, the decree-holder can take any coercive steps and also there is no bar either under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act or under Section 80 read with Section 81 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to bid and purchase the property. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge on I.A. No. V.
9. For the foregoing reasons, revision is dismissed. No costs.