Point of Law: A Bank is defined under Section 3(1)(a) of PTCL Act.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a Writ or direction in nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 11.11.2014 in Revision Petition No.CO/18/CAP/2013 (Annexure-A) passed by the 1st Respondent.

b. Issue any other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner claims to be an auction purchaser of the property, which is claimed to belong to respondent Nos.4 to 6. Respondent No.4 had initially borrowed a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-from respondent No.3/Bank as regards which respondent No.5/Kalu Naik had mortgaged the property bearing Sy.No.153/2 measuring 2 acres 80 cents at Hirbetttu Village, Udupi Taluk and District. The borrower having defaulted on the repayment of the loan, dispute was raised wherein an arbitrator was appointed and an award came to be passed in favour of the Bank. In execution of the said award, the aforesaid land came to be sold through auction by respondent No.3 on 29.09.2005, wherein the petitioner was the successful bidder.

3. Thereafter, respondent No.2 confirmed the auction sale vide its order dated 21.07.2010, which was challenged by respondent No.6 herein along with respondent No.4 as also two other sons of Kalu Naik in W.P.No.23599/2010 on the ground that the land being a granted land, the same could not be auctioned and provision of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act and Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978 (PTCL Act) would be applicable thereto and as such, in the said writ petition the confirmation of the auction was prayed to be quashed.

4. This Court vide its order dated 02.08.2011, dismissed the petition leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue not only the statutory remedy under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘KCS Act’) but also to invoke the provision of the PTCL Act since those questions could not be considered on account of the auction sale being at a nascent stage.

5. Subsequent to the disposal of the said writ petition in W.P.No.23599/2010, respondent No.6 initiated proceeding before respondent No.2 to transfer the mutation in his name, which was so done on 12.05.2011 and thereafter, followed up with a filing of a suit for partition in O.S.No.381/2011, wherein a decree was passed in favour of respondent No.6 declaring him to be entitled for 1/5th share.

6. In the meanwhile, the auction was confirmed in favour of the petitioner and it is challenging the same that a revision petition came to be filed on 06.08.2013 before respondent No.1 seeking for revising the order of confirmation of sale, which came to be so revised vide order dated 11.11.2014 at Annexure-A, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

7. Sri. K.A.Ariga, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that:

7.1. The petitioner having participated in the auction in the year 2005 itself and having remitted the amount, the auction has been confirmed in favour of the petitioner.

7.2. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 from time to time sought to create obstacles to the petitioner from enjoying the fruits of the said auction. The petitioner being a bonafide purchaser of the property for value during a public auction, has been deprived of the use of the property on account of various litigation which had been filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in collusion with each other.

7.3. The said Revision Petition was not maintainable inasmuch as the auction sale having been confirmed, an alternative remedy was available to respondent No.6 which was not exercised. The auction sale having occurred in the year 2005. The revision petition having been filed in the year 06.08.2013, was highly belated and respondent No.1 ought not to have exercised revisional powers under Section 108 of the KCS Act, inasmuch as any such application ought to have been filed within a period of six months.

7.4. On these grounds, he subm