JUDGMENT :

1. The matter is listed in the category of ‘Oldest Cases for early disposal’. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order of attachment Ex.7 may kindly be quashed with all consequential reliefs and all further proceedings in pursuance of the order Ex.7 be quashed. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant be also granted. The costs of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased one agricultural land situated at village Devliyaari Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer bearing Khasra No. 74 from respondent No. 5 Shri Dhan Raj Jain having area of 69 Bigha and 12 Biswas (latest khatoni number being 26) through registered sale deed dated 25.9.1998 (Exhibit-1) for consideration of Rs 2,78,400/-. After the purchase of the land, it had been mutated (Exhibit-2) in the name of the petitioner and khasra Girdawari (Exhibit-3) was also made in the name of the petitioner.

3. Thereafter the petitioner got the information on 19.05.1999 from the News paper Rajasthan Patrika regarding proclamation of sale (Exhibit-5) that his land is being sold in auction by one Advocate Sampat Bothra despite having no case pending against him in the Debts Recovery Tribunal or any other court neither was any notice given to him nor was he party to any proceedings wherein any order was made. Thus he filed a suit for permanent injunction (Exhibit-4) against Shri Sampat Bothra in which summons were served on him but he did not appear in court despite the service and ex parte proceedings were directed to be ordered and stay was granted upto the date 29.05.1999 to not sell or auction the land in question. Thereafter Shri Sampat Bothra put in the appearance through one Shri Vijay Singh Rathore and an application was filed under order 39 Rule 4 of CPC 1908 for vacation of interim order which was allowed by Learned Civil Judge (J.D) Siwana.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner got information regarding other proceedings wherein execution was filed against Shri Dhan Raj Jain and despite the fact that the land was not mortgaged the Recovery Officer passed an order dated 16.09.1998 attaching the agricultural land after the decree dated 18.03.1997 was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT in short) for which notice was never served upon Shri Dhanraj Jain.

5. That from the affidavit of the Bank Manager which was filed before the Civil Judge (J.D) Siwana. the petitioner got the information that the property in question was not mortgaged with the bank but a decree has been passed against Respondent No. 5 Shri Dhan Raj Jain in a case decided on 18.03.1997 and in pursuance of the same, Recovery Officer has passed an attachment order dated 16.09.1998 (Exihibit-7) for attaching the movable property. That the above mentioned order was never served upon Shri Dhan Raj Jain and thus the petitioner received no information. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application dated 02.06.1999 (Exhibit-6) before Civil Court to withdraw the suit filed against Shri Sampat Bothra. The petitioner being aggrieved of the attachment order dated 16.09.1998 (Exihibit-7), prefers this writ petition.

6. At the outset Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection on alternative remedy being available to the petitioner for filing an appeal to appellate tribunal under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 and placed reliance on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.P Vishnu Kumar versus Canara Bank Tiruppur and Ors reported in (2013) 10 SCC 652;