1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 6.5.1978 (annexure P/21) passed by the Competent Authority under the Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1960 (in short, the Ceiling Act) whereby the land in question has been declared surplus and this order has been affirmed upto the Board of Revenue.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that the holder of the land was one Girji Bai. In the year 1972 said Girja Bai obtained loan from 5th respondent M.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and mortgaged the land in question to the Bank. On account of non-payment of loan of Rs. 20,000/- which she took, the Bank took a decision to auction the land in question. Eventually, on 9.6.1985 Sale notice (annexure P/8) was issued by the Bank; on 11.6.1985 (annexure P/9) the sale was confirmed by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies; and on 4.6.1988 (annexure P/13) the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner/auction purchaser.

3. On bare perusal of the averments made in the petition as well as the impugned order of the Competent Authority dated 6.5.1978 (annexure P/21) it is gathered that the draft statement was published and thereafter the return (annexure P/20) was submitted by the said holder Girji Bai stating therein in the requisite column that the land in question has been mortgaged by her with the Bank (respondent no.5). But no notice under Section 11 (3) of the Ceiling Act was issued to the Bank.

4.The Competent Authority on the basis of the material placed on record declared the land in question to be surplus and the said order has been affirmed upto the Board of Revenue. Thereafter, the surplus land has been allotted to the interveners also who are said to be landless persons.

5.In this manner the present petition has been filed by the auction purchaser/petitioner before this Court.

6.It has been put forth by Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal. learned counsel for the petitioner that once the holder of the land has fairly disclosed that the land in question has been mortgaged with the Bank since she had obtained loan of Rs. 20,000/-, it was incumbent upon the Competent Authority to have issued notice to the Bank and having not done so, the proceedings stands vitiated and thus the right of auction purchaser/petitioner who bought the land in question in auction sale cannot be jeopardized. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Saadat Mohammad Khan and others vs. State of M.P. and others 2004 RN 81=2003(5) M.P.L.J. 68.

7. On the other hand Smt.Divya Kirti Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that this petition has no merit and the same be dismissed.

8. Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel appearing for the interveners submitted that the proceedings of auction took place in terms of M.P. Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1966 and the rules framed thereunder but Section 49 of the Ceiling Act is having overriding effect upon all other enactments and, therefore, it has been submitted that if the land has been declared surplus under the Ceiling Act, the action of the competent authority cannot be said to be illegal and the petitioner is having no right. It has also been put forth by him that the property in question has already vested in the State Government in the year 1978 since final statement was already published in terms of Section 11(6) of the Ceiling Act and the auction took place thereafter in the year 1985. By inviting my attention to Chapter V of the Ceiling Act it has been put forth by learned counsel that the Bank was having only limited right as emphasized in different sections of this Chapter and the only right which the Bank owns is to realize the amount which was given to the holder of the