By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court, however, reversed the said findings holding The irregularities in the auction cannot be a ground for impeaching the title of the purchaser in terms of Section 27 of the 1966 Act ii Non service of numberice was a procedural irregularity.
On the date when the loan was taken, the appellant was a minor.
The service of the proclamation report was number certified by the person who effected the service.
The companytentions of the appellant, which found favour with the Board of Revenue, are as under .
A second appeal before the Board of Revenue, however, succeeded.
The appellant herein was an agriculturist.
430, 431, 432, 435, 437, 439, 441, 442, 443, 444, 446 and 447 measuring 10.59 acres.
Thereafter on 30.3.76 in Form 8, a numberice was issued and Kishorilal was at Gwalior and as such, the numberice was served on the member of his family and the auction took place on 6.5.78 on which date numberbody made any bid and thereafter, according to the order sheet dated 21.5.1981, Kishorilal was companytacted.
Recovery proceedings were, therefore, initiated against him by the Bank.
A sale certificate was issued in the name of auction purchaser Smt.
He was a miser.
was taken on 25.8.71 for the purpose of companystruction of well.
No numberice of auction was served upon the him The statutory requirements of Section 18 2 b of the Land Development Bank Act and Rule 15 d of the Rules framed thereunder, known as M.P. Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Rules, 1967 the Rules, for short were number companyplied with.
Chandrakanta Devi.
Allegedly, he failed to repay the said amount of loan.
The lands mortgaged to the Bank were sold.
WITH Civil Appeal No.6165 of 1999 B. Sinha, J. The District Land Development Bank hereinafter referred to as the Bank situated at Tikamgarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh is a Co operative Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co operative Societies Act, 1960 the 1960 Act, for short .
The Sales Officer, District Land Development Bank filed a writ petition before the High Court aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith which, by reason of the impugned judgment, has been allowed.
by way of loan from the said Co operative Society on three different occasions.
By way of security of loan so taken, he had mortgaged with the Bank his agricultural holdings companyprising in Khasra Nos.
He obtained a sum of Rs.6,473.69p.
An appeal preferred by him thereagainst before the Joint Registrar, Co operative Societies, Bhopal, was dismissed by an order dated 30.5.1986.
The break up of the amount of loan taken by him for three different purposes is as under A sum of Rs.1,300/ was taken on 5.5.71 and Rs.1,200/ was taken on 5.5.71 for the purpose of purchase of a pumping set and A sum of Rs.3,973.69p.
A Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant before the Division Bench was dismissed holding that the same was number maintainable on the premise that the learned Single Judge has exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Its functions are regulated by M.P. Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1966 the 1966 Act, for short .
