SANGEETA CHANDRA,J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) This Court had passed two detailed orders one of which dated 06.05.1994 after recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, had stayed the further recovery proceedings and clarified that auction sale that had already taken place on 14.08.1992, shall not be confirmed and the petitioner's possession shall not be disturbed from the land in dispute nor the proceedings for arrest and detention of the petitioner shall take place until further orders. This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 17.07.2014 and thereafter, restored on an application made by the legal heirs of the petitioner. After restoration of the writ petition on 13.07.2017, the interim order was revived. The auction purchaser died in the meantime, and he was also substituted by his legal heirs and representatives. This Court while hearing the matter on 27.11.2017 noticed that no counter affidavit was filed by the State-respondents, therefore, directed the State-respondents that counter affidavit be filed failing which the Collector, Sultanpur, would appear in person to assist this Court. A Counter affidavit was filed in January, 2018. An additional counter affidavit was also filed thereafter by the State-respondents. When this Court heard the matter again on 03.10.2018, had passed the following orders:- "This Court as far as back on 06.05.1994 had directed the Collector to point out in writing the name of the institution in respect of whom or for whom the amount was being recovered from the petitioner within a period of three weeks, so that petitioner may implead that institution as party in these proceedings. The respondents were also directed to file counter affidavit indicating therein the nature of recovery and further indicating as to in respect of what amount or relating to which institution or bank, the recovery was being made. However, no such information has yet been furnished, though the matter has been pending before this Court 24 long years. In these circumstances, list this case on 11.10.2018, on which date, Sub Divisional Officer/Tehsildar concerned shall be present before the Court along with entire record relating to the recovery and auction proceedings. The record to be produced under this order before the Court shall include all the relevant documents right from the sale certificate to further proceedings which might have been drawn by the revenue authorities."
(3.) When the case was taken up by this Court on 11.10.2018, it took notice of the fact that the State-respondents stated in their various affidavits that the files relating to the auction sale were not traceable in their office. This Court directed the petitioner to implead the Baroda Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch-Alipur Sarawan, Sultanpur through its Bank Manager as Respondent no.5 and Central Bank of India, Branch Kadipur, Sultanpur through its Branch Manager as Respondent no.6 respectively in this petition and also directed the Banks concerned to file their counter affidavits. A direction was also issued that the Commissioner shall ensure filing of affidavits explaining the efforts made by the parties for tracing the auction sale file.;