V. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) ONE Ram Swaroop resident of 282, Subhash Bazar, Meerut took a loan of Rs. 14,000/- from the State of Uttar Pradesh under an agreement dated March 7, 1964. He had taken the loan for setting up an industry but unfortunately died before any appreciable steps could be taken by him. Under the terms of the agreement, the amount was payable in instalments with interest and upon failure of the borrower to make payment the amount in balance could be recovered by sale of the property given in security by the borrower House Nos. 254 to 260 (old) and 270 to 277 (new) which was also described with reference to its boundary in the agreement was given as security for the loan.
(2.) SMT. Sunderwati, widow of the deceased Ram Swaroop and the son and two daughters of the deceased, namely, Anant Ram, SMT. Kusum Rani and SMT. Kamla Rani have approached this court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present petition. Their case is that the house given in security by Ram Swaroop was an ancestral property in which Ram Swaroop had only a share. It was not his self-acquired property so that he could not give the entire house as security for the loan. The case further is that when proceedings for recovery as arrears as land revenue were initiated in terms of the agreement, they learnt for the first time that the house had been offered in security and that some part of the loan had remained unpaid by Ram Swaroop. The widow, namely, SMT. Sunderwati made an application to the Hon'ble Minister of Industries, U. P. with the prayer that she may be required to deposit the balance amount of the loan in instalments and that the amount of the interest be waived. It is asserted that she was required to deposit part of the amount borrowed, namely, Rs. 8,000/- by the respondents through a communication dated September 28, 1972 so that the application made by her could be considered further. She deposited this amount on October 3/4, 1972 and gave another application dated December 2, 1972 for the amount of interest and penal interest being waived and for permission to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- in instalments. She received copy of a communication dated March 23, 1973 addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of U. P. to the District Officer, Meerut according to which the District Officer was required to realise the balance amount of the loan from her in five equal six monthly instalments. She, therefore, inferred that the amount of interest had been waived. However, by a notice dated December 23, 1974, she was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,492.71 said to be still due from her deceased husband towards the loan. She was required to appear in the Tahsil Office on December 13, 1974 to show cause why proceedings for recovery of the amount be not taken in accordance with law. Then she filed a detailed objection dated February 26, 1975 before the Tahsildar which was not decided. Instead, the property was attached by the Collector on 1-3-1975. The property was likely to be put to sale so that the widow, son and daughters of the deceased Ram Swaroop had to approach this court for redress through the present writ petition. The petition was admitted to hearing by an order of this Court dated March 25, 1975 and on the prayer made in that regard, an interim order was passed by this Court that the property shall not be sold by the respondents till such time that the objection filed by the widow on February 26, 1975 had not been decided. The respondents contested the claim made by the petitioner and have filed a counter affidavit sworn by a clerk in the office of the District Industries Officer Meerut. The case of the respondents is that the property having been offered as security could be sold for recovery of the outstanding amount and that the State Government had not waived the amount of interest and penal interest so that recovery as arrears of land revenue of that amount could be made. One of the objections taken in the counter affidavit is that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the objection filed before him.
(3.) HAVING heard Sri R. N. Bhalla for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Misra learned State Counsel we are of opinion that the petitioners are entitled to relief from this Court. It is true that the property which has been attached was offered as security by the borrower who had consented to its sale for recovery of any amount due from him as arrears of land revenue. However, the case of the petitioners being that the borrower was not the exclusive owner of the property which was ancestral in character and was not entitled to offer the entire property as security for the loan taken by him, the action of the respondents to take steps, after attaching the entire property, for putting it to sale for the recovery of the amount due from deceased Ram Swaroop without deciding their objection was not justified in law.;