- (1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. By this pe tition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26. 7. 2004 and 27. 9. 2002 passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 i. e. Board of Revenue and Commissioner Bareilly Re gion. Bareilly respectively.
(2.) IT is stated that WIMCO Ltd. had sponsored a scheme for plantation of pop lar plants in Bareilly region and other areas in which farmers of area were supplied plants at the instance of WIMCO Company and on the recommendation of WIMCO Ltd. the Bank had advanced loan to the farmers who were interested in plantation of poplar plants in the aforesaid region. Under the aforesaid scheme the Punjab National Bank had advanced loan to the petitioners on the recommendation of WIMCO Ltd. in tune of Rs. 72,500/- to be payable in 5 yearly instalments from 1988 to 1992. The aforesaid loan was not given to the petitioners directly, rather the loan amount was paid to the WIMCO Ltd. which had supplied the poplar plants for plantation. The aforesaid amount was dis bursed to the petitioners under the aforesaid scheme in different years. IT is stated that the plants which were planted by the petitioners were not fully grown and as per agreement WIMCC Ltd. had not purchased the poplar trees grown by the petitioners, accordingly the petitioners could not replay the amount of loan advanced to them. Al though the scheme was not sponsored by State under which loan was given to the petitioners, instead thereof the loan was given to the petitioner under cash credit facility scheme and Bank was not entitled to issue any recovery certificate for realisa tion of loan amount from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue but Bank has sent recovery certificate to the Collector, in pur suance of which Tehsildar issued citation to the petitioners. Against the aforesaid re covery, the petitioners have filed writ peti tion before this Court but meanwhile the opposite party No. 4 attached the land of the petitioners and ultimately put the land for auction. The petitioners had no knowl edge about the date of auction and Tehsil dar has auctioned the land of petitioners to the respondent No. 5 for amount of Rs. 2,60,000/ -. However, when the petitioners came to know about the auction, they im mediately filed objection under Rule 285 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Rules before Commissioner Bareilly Region, Bareilly but the Commis sioner without any cogent reason has re jected the aforesaid objection of the peti tioners vide order dated 27. 2. 2002. Ag grieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly the petition ers have filed revision before Board of Revenue. Initially the Board of Revenue stayed the operation of order dated 27. 9. 2002 passed by Commissioner. Bareilly and summoned the records of the Court below but ultimately after hearing the peti tioners and Counsel for opposite parties dismissed the same vide order dated 26. 7. 2004 impugned in the writ petition. IT is stated that in spite of auction of the land in question the petitioners are still in pos session but the respondent No. 5 has also sold the said land to other persons, there fore, the petitioners are apprehending that now transferees would disturb peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. The submission of learned Coun sel for the petitioners in nut shell is that the land belonging to the petitioners namely Gata No. 289 area 1. 135 hectare and Gata No. 11 area 3. 218 hectare situated in village Sona Hega Nagla, Tehsil Aonla, District Bareilly is approximately 10 acres but the same has been auctioned in tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- only. The cost/market value of land was approximately at least 10 lacs at the time of auction but the same was auctioned merely for Rs. 2,60,000/- and authorities did not consider the sale price on the basis of present market value of the land while putting it to auction, in this way the aforesaid land of the petitioners was grabbed by the respondent No. 5 in collu sion of Tehsil authorities. The sale price of land put to auction was decisive factor to decide the objection and revision against said auction, but the same has not been considered by the authorities concerned. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners appears to have some substance and requires consideration of this Court. In this connection, at this juncture it is necessary to point out that this Court cannot lose sight of prevalent rampant cor ruption in public life including public administration, which has become national malady now a days, therefore, in my opin ion the duties and responsibilities of this Court has been increased to maintain faith in the system. It would not be unusual for such land grabbers and land maphias to manipulate Tahsildar, Sub Divisional Offi cer, Commissioner and members of Board of Revenue, if the land of value ten lacs is auctioned in his. favour merely in Rs. 2,60,000/- It is also not known that when the loan was advanced for Rs. 72,500/-only returnable within four years i. e. 1988 to 1992, how on the default made by the petitioners the recovery proceedings if at all could be initiated in accordance with law, were not taken within proper and rea sonable time and the matter was left till the year 1996-97 during which on account of interest on the loan amount, the amount due against the petitioners had been in creased but it is not further understandable as to how this amount has been increased from Rs. 72,500/- to Rs. 2,60,000/- to the extent of more than thrice to the principal amount. Further this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there are rackets of auction purchasers in every Tehsil who purchases land through auction and it is new device utilized by the land maphias with the help and collusion of Tehsil authorities to grab the lands of poor farm ers who could not repay the loan advanced by the bank for agricultural purpose. In such auction proceedings, the genuine per sons are prevented by the land maphias from participating in such auction proceed ing and lands are auctioned on very low price. Therefore, now it become boundened duty of higher authorities to look into the procedure followed in such auction includ ing the participants in it and auction price of land in comparison to the current market value of such land. It is also not known from the material available on record that why the WIMCO Ltd. could not purchase the trees in the terms of agreement entered into WIMCO and petitioners. I am prima facie of the opinion that it is a case of land grabbing by the respondent No. 5 with the help of tehsil authorities of the poor form ers who have taken the loan for plantation of poplar plants over their land and ulti mately they have lost their land also on which the plantation was done by them without any profit.
(3.) IN such facts and circumstances of the case the Tehsildar Aonla, District Bareilly and Sub Divisional Officer, Bareilly are directed to file their personal affidavits stating the facts that for which amount the recovery certificate was issued by the bank and what was the market value of land at relevant point of time which has been auctioned and how the aforesaid land was auctioned in the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- and how much money was paid to the bank along with the papers of auction proceed ing? They are also directed to appear be fore this Court in person and file their affi davits on the date fixed by this Court. Petitioners have also moved an application for impleading the persons mentioned in the impleadment application as necessary party in the proceeding to whom respondent No. 5 auction purchaser has subsequently sold the land in dispute. Although the subsequent sale is subject matter of litigation and is covered by doctrine of lis pendens but in order to afford fair opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the impleadment application is al lowed and persons mentioned in the application are impleaded as necessary party in the array of respondents Office is directed to make necessary incorporation in the body of writ petition in this regard.;