The court affirmed that failure to comply with prior court orders and the finality of executed sale deeds limit the ability to contest auction proceedings under the Land Revenue Code.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“7. I) To allow this petition by issuing an appropriate Writ, Direction or order.

II) To quash the impugned order of auction dated 17.06.2017, issued by respondent no.2 Revenue Board, by writ of certiorari or any other writ.

III) To direct the respondent to compensate the petitioners by giving the amount of the aforesaid building as market value after deducting the loan amount. The market value of the aforesaid building is more than one crore rupees and after deducting the loan amount the petitioner still have right to take and respondent no.1 is liable to pay the amount more than fifty lakhs rupees to the petitioners.

IV] To direct the respondents to give compensation for mental harassment for petitioner and his family.

V] To pass such orders, Writ or direction in favour of the plaintiff, as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

VI] To direct the respondents to revert back the household articles of the petitioners.”

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure P/25), passed by the Board of Revenue, Indore in a Revision filed under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to “the Code of 1959”) whereby the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore on 04.08.2011, has been affirmed. In the order dated 04.08.2011, the Additional Commissioner has also affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector 08.06.2011 (Annexure P/23); whereas, the Additional Collector rejected the petitioners’ application challenging the auction proceeding initiated under Rule 39 of Schedule I of the Code of 1959.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that in the year 1998, two loans were obtained by the petitioner no.1/Smt. Bindu W/o late Balakrishna Vyas and petitioner no.2/Vimal Kumar Vyas S/o Late Balkrishna Vyas to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and 8,50,000/- respectively from the respondent No.1/Indore Paraspar Shakari Bank Limited, Indore for construction of their ancestral house. Admittedly, they defaulted in repayment of the said loan, which led to the auction of the said house for a throw away price by the respondent no.1vide order dated 29.04.2010, which led the petitioner to file the petition being Writ Petition no.6378/2010, which was disposed of, by this Court on 15.07.2010, with a liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, for challenging the auction proceeding, sale certificate and the consequential sale deed in the matter.

4. Subsequently, being aggrieved of the auction proceedings dated 11.3.2010, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 before the Additional Collector but, it was dismissed on 08.06.2011. According to the petitioners, the application was rejected by the Additional Collector on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to review the order dated 20.05.2010, which was passed by his counterpart, i.e., the Officer of the same rank, the earlier Additional Collector. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 17.06.2017.

5. Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued before this Court that that if the Additional Collector was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to pass the order, then he could have sent the matter to some other authority, as objections were raised under Rule 39 of schedule I of the Act, 1959 (for auction of the property).

6. To support his submissions, Shri Rathi has relied on a decision rendered by the M.P. Board of Revenue in the case of Ramsaran vs. Mewala, 1965 (10) M.P.L.J. 290.

7. Whereas, the prayer is vehemently opposed by Shri Sanjay P. Joshi, counsel for the respondent no.1 and it is submitted that the very ground which is argued by the counsel for the petitioner is not even raised in the Writ Petition, as also before the revenue authorities, and th