- (1.) The petitioner M/s. Ganesh Oil and General Mills, Hanumangarh road, Srigan-ganagar and its partner Shri Ram Bhaj have filed this writ petition and prayed to issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent No. 1 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and respondent No. 2. Recovery Officer and Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur from auctioning the khatedari land mentioned at para Nos. 3 and 4 of the application. Annexure 1 submitted by the respondent No. 3, Central Bank of India, Sriganganagar for the purpose of recovery of debts of the petitioners.
(2.) The petitioners took a loan of huge amount from the respondent No. 3, Central Bank way back on 1-1-1983 by mortgaging its property with the bank. In suit No. 121/95 filed by the bank decree was passed in favour of the bank against the present petitioners for Rs. 1,30,99,003.00, the amount due as on 6-10-1997 with the cost of Rs. 76,950.50 in all Rs. 1,31,75,953.50. The petitioners mortgaged its property with the bank for taking loan amount in 1983. On 14-5-1997 the presiding officer issued recovery certificate. That time the petitioners never raised objection regarding bar of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides that the rights of a tenant in a holding shall not be liable to seizure, attachment or sale by process of any civil Court. According to the petitioners, the land in question was a khudkast irrigated land though situated within the municipal area, but it was never used for industrial purpose. Learned counsel Shri Sharma has raised only one objection regarding bar of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which was also raised before the authority i.e. Debts Recovery Officer, who has also rejected this contention. It may be stated that while mortgaging the property within the bank the petitioners have never stated that it was an agricultural land. Not only that, when the recovery certificate was issued on 14-5-1997 that time also before the presiding officer no such objection was raised. It is only at the fag end this type of objection has been raised, which was not accepted by the Debt Recovery Officer. In order dated 14-5-1997 passed by the presiding officer while issuing the recovery certificate it has been clearly stated that on failure to pay dues within the stipulated period the amount be realised through execution proceedings by sale of mortgaged property. It is pertinent to note that, that order dated 14-5-1997 was never questioned by challenging it before any Court. No such objection was ever raised before presiding officer. Hence, I am of the opinion that in execution proceedings it would not be open to the petitioner to raise such objection.
(3.) That apart, when the recovery officer has dealt with this objection regarding bar of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in detail in his order (Annexure 5) for which he has given sound reasons. The law is very clear that a person who does not come with clean hands before the Court will not be entitled for any relief from this Court.;