Navin Sinha C.J. - (1.) The present appeal arises from order dated 12/09/2005 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3109/1998 declining to interfere with the auction of the lands of the appellant consequent to his failure to repay the loan taken by him from the respondent-bank.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no statutory notice under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 was ever served upon him. The entire proceedings before the Deputy Collector for recovery were therefore illegal. Against a loan of Rs. 70,000/- only for purchase of a tractor, a illegal demand was raised for Rs. 1,73,620/-. Instead of auctioning the tractor, his lands have been illegally auctioned, which was never the subject matter of the loan. The deposit of Rs. 10,000/- has not been taken into consideration while calculating the accounts. The property has been sold for a value much higher than the loan and therefore the enrichment during auction must be given to the appellant after satisfaction of the loan.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal submitting that the loan was taken as far back as 26/06/1982 under a written agreement signed between the appellant and the bank. There is no challenge to the same. The agreement provided for charging interest in the manner prescribed. The dues are inclusive of interest. The appellant had hypothecate his lands under the agreement for the loan. Statutory notice was sent to the appellant by registered post as mentioned in the counter affidavit. There was no rejoinder to the same. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- alleged to have been deposited has been duly taken note of by the Deputy Collector in the order-sheet dated 05/01/1996. The accounts were furnished, which he accepted and offered to deposit further Rs. 25,000/- but despite repeated opportunities, failed to do so and in fact stopped appearing before the Deputy Collector. The appellant adopted an approach of procrastination to find ways and means and prevent adjudication by refusing to discharge the loan. The order of the learned Single Judge notices the dilatory practices adopted by the appellant to evade payment of the loan. The order of the learned Single Judge calls for no interference.;