Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Shri Shiv P. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent -Bank. According to the facts of the case as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, agricultural loan was taken by Girdhari Lal, Putti Lal and Manohar Lal to the tune of Rs. 2,35,000/ - in the year 2000. It appears that Shri Girdhari Lal died in the month of December, 2002. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the respondent -Bank has neither provided any statement of account of Girdhari Lal nor issued any demand notice to the petitioners who are heirs of late Girdhari Lal.
(2.) NOW by the impugned citation of recovery the Tahsil authorities had proceeded under section 282 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act to recover the amount taken by Shri Girdhari Lal and others as arrears of land revenue. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since no statement of the account has been provided to the heirs of late Girdhari Lal by the respondent -Bank no recovery proceeding can be initiated against them. The loan in question which was given to the petitioners' father can not be recovered by auction of petitioners' land which was given to them on lease with non -transferable right by the Tahsil Authorities. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the amount which has been taken as agricultural loan by three persons as mentioned hereinabove may be recovered from all three persons and not only from the petitioners. It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that amount may be recovered by auctioning the tractor or other movable property instead of auctioning the land in question which has been vested in the petitioners in pursuance to the lease granted by the Gram Samaj in pursuance to section 198 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on account of the fact that petitioners are landless persons. It has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 16.1.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 3882 of 1987 (M/B) : (Ram Prasad and another v. State of U.P. and others) that in case actual borrower died then Tahsil Authorities may not proceed with the auction and sale property and it shall be incumbent on them to refer the back the reference of recovery to the bank concern and the bank have to issue afresh demand notice to the heirs of the deceased.
(3.) IN the present case it appears that no fresh demand notice has been issued to the heirs of late Shri Girdhari Lal and the Tahsil Authority has proceeded ahead to put the property of the petitioners for auction and sale as the arrears of the land revenue which is not permissible under the settled law.;