The court ruled that auction sales must comply with procedural requirements, and failure to notify the original owner invalidates the sale, emphasizing the principle of estoppel when objections are not raised timely.

Order :

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Ms. Anushka Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State as well as Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4A.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 15.06.2010 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh, Co-operative Department in Revision Case No.78/26/2008 as also the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh in Second Appeal Case No.77(2)(1)49/07 as well as order dated 15.09.2007 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh in Appeal Case No.77(1)358/R/04, by which the auction sale was declared to be illegal. The petitioner is auction purchaser of the land. The land was auctioned due to non-payment of the loan by the original owner, namely Mohan.

3. The petitioner while challenging the aforesaid orders has sought for following relief(s) :-

“1] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order dated 15.06.2010 (Annex.P-1), 23.09.2008 (Annex.P-2) & 15.09.2007 (Annex.P-3) in the interest of justice.

2] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Brief facts for disposal of the instant writ petition are that, one Mohan S/o Bhagirathi was the original owner of the land bearing Khasra No.126, 170, 252 situated at Village Bardih, District Raipur. Mohan has taken a loan from the Co-operative Societies, however, when the loan amount was not repaid by him, the Co-operative Societies has auctioned the property in order to recover the loan amount only on 16.03.1969, which the petitioner has purchased. Sale certificate dated 27.05.1969 was also issued in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner got his name mutated in the revenue records. The said Mohan, who was original owner of the property and who has taken loan from the Co-operative Society was issue-less, as such, no one has objected either in the auction proceeding or during the course of passing of sale certificate even in the mutation proceedings. After 7 years of the proceedings, one Girja Bai, D/o Chamar Rai has moved an application before Tahsildar, Raipur for mutation of her name in place of Late Mohan claiming herself to be cousin sister of Late Mohan.

5. When the father of petitioners, namely, Radheshyam came to know about the mutation proceedings, he raised an objection upon the application preferred by Girja Bai only on 10.12.1975 alleging therein that he has purchased the suit property in an auction sale proceedings and got his name mutated after following due procedure of law, as such, application preferred by Girja Bai be dismissed. The Tahsildar dismissed the application preferred by Girja Bai and has mutated the name of Radheshyam holding that if Girja Bai is aggrieved by auction sale proceedings, she should have challenged the same by filing appropriate application.

6. Against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Girja Bai moved an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, who in turn, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.05.1980, affirming the order of Tahsildar stating that order of recovery proceedings dated 27.05.1968 has attained its finality.

7. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Raipur. The Commissioner, Raipur allowed the appeal preferred by Girja Bai vide order dated 19.08.1982 holding that Recovery Officer has not followed the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and has auctioned the property in question without giving notice to legal representatives of Late Mohan (original owner of the property).

8. Against th