- (1.) HEARD Shri J.K. Sinha learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sachin Garg learned Counsel for opposite party No. 5 and the learned Standing counsel.
(2.) THE controversy in question runs in narrow compass relates to payment of interest on account of refund of auction money after inordinate delay. According to petitioner's counsel on account of default of payment of dues of the Bank (opposite party No. 5) the auction proceeding was initiated and the land of the private respondent was auctioned on 21.4.1997. It appears that recorded tenure holder had filed a Writ petition No. 2096 MB of 1997, which was disposed of finally by Judgment and order dated 19.8.1997 permitting the recorded tenure holder to pay the dues in three equal instalment. However, recorded tenure holder had paid the dues in six instalment and satisfied the loan. Thereafter, the matter was kept pending by the authorities and only in the year 2003 the auction money was refunded to the petitioner. It was stated that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/ - was deposited as auction money by the petitioner which was lying with the State Government/ tehsil authorities but not refunded for the period of five years. After great persuasion petitioner got back the money deposited. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the amount has been refunded back to the petitioner after lapse of five years but no interest has been paid.
(3.) THE facts and circumstances on record indicates that the petitioner suffered for no fault on his part. In case this Court had interfered in the year 1997 itself and permitted the recorded tenure holder (borrower) to pay the dues in easy instalment then it was incumbent upon the tehsil authorities to refund the auction money immediately. Keeping the matter pending for such a long period and not refunding the auction money within reasonable period seems to be an arbitrary exercise of power for which petitioner cannot be put to suffer for no fault on his part.;