1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

1.SB Civil Misc Application No.389/2015

in

SB Civil Writ Petition No.491/2014

Smt Sunita Bhandari versus Chief Executive Officer & ors

2.SB Civil Misc Application No.370/2015

in

SB Civil Writ Petition No.491/2014

Sunita Bhandari versus The Chief Executive Officer & ors

3.SB Civil Misc Application No.390/2015

in

SB Civil Writ Petition No.491/2014

Sunita Bhandari versus The Chief Executive Officer & ors

23.11.2015

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

Mr JK Singhi, Sr Adv with Mr Anuroop Singhi

Dr RK Sharma

Mr Mahesh Gupta – for petitioner/s

Mr Azad Ahmed

Ms Suruchi Kasliwal – for respondents

BY THE COURT:

Heard on the application. Learned counsel for the applicant/s

submit that despite auction of the land pursuant to the directions of the court

and confirmation of sale by the land holder and Khadi & Village Industries

Commission (for short 'the KVIC'), the Sub Registrar is not registering the

sale deed. The applicant is bona fide purchaser of the land by giving highest

bid thus an order may be passed on the Sub Registrar to register the sale

deed.

2

Learned counsel appearing for the KVIC submits that the writ

petition was filed at the stage when ICICI Bank initiated action for auction

of the property of the guarantor. This court found that the amount due

towards the bank would not be satisfied by the property put for auction. The

borrower offered alternate property with an assurance that it would fetch

sufficient amount. Considering the dues of the bank, this court permitted

auction of the land at Shivdaspura, Jaipur. The KVIC issued advertisement

for auction but no one bid for it. The advertisement was again issued but it

also received same result. When a fresh advertisement with proper terms

and conditions was issued, the bid was given but it was not confirmed by

the court on the prayer of the KVIC and other parties. The advertisement

was again issued wherein applicant remained successful and accordingly

the sale was confirmed. The amount so fetched out of sale was given to the

ICICI Bank, who had accepted it in full and final settlement. In view of

above, there was no reason for the Sub Registrar to deny registration of the

sale deed. It is more so when in a separate writ petition bearing 9250/2009 a

direction was given for merger of the land when it was denied by the State

Government. The State Government has unnecessarily created hindrance

thus applicant-Vinoba Seva Samiti had to approach this court time and

again. When, at the time of merger, no claim or objection was made by the

State Government for the land in question, then there exist no reason to

deny registration of the sale deed.

Learned counsel appearing for the Sub Registrar submits that

they had no objection to register the sale deed. In fact, a complaint was

3

made to the Lokayukta followed by a direction for enquiry by the Collector.

In view of aforesaid, sale deed was not registered. If this court will pass an

appropriate order for registration of the sale deed, it would be carried out.

Learned counsel for the ICICI Bank has no objection if a

direction is given for registration of the sale deed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for

the parties. Initially a dispute came before this court when the land

belonging to Vinoba Seva Samiti was not merged. This court, in CW

9250/2009 issued directions followed by merger of the land on payment of

due amount. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner at the stage

when their property was put for auction being gurantor. During the course

of hearing, an alternative land was proposed for auction to fetch required

amount. After detail arguments, the court passed order for auction of the

property. The advertisement for it was issued on four different occasions in

view of the fact that initial two advertisements were having certain defects

thus KVIC was directed to