TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sale officer has resulted in the deprivation of the right to livelihood of the appellants who are small landowners, guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, Section 108 of the KCS Act confers the power of revision on the state government suo moto at any time, or on application by an applicant within 6 months of the passing of an order. The KCS Act is a special legislation. Thus, by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the power to condone delay is available with the state government. The contention of the auction purchaser that no such application for condonation of delay of the belated revision petition has been filed by the appellants is a hyper technical one and cannot be sustained. Where the state government has exercised its statutory power under Section 108 of the KCS Act after satisfying itself that the sale of the mortgaged immoveable property of the appellants in the public auction is illegal, it is not open for the respondents to contest the same by urging technical grounds, especially in light of the fact that the power conferred upon the state government under Section 108 of the KCS Act is ‘suo moto’ and the same c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions. 2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 02.07.2012 passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 411 of 2006 and 410 of 2006 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, thereby upholding the judgment and order of the learned single judge passed in Writ Petition Nos. 22453 of 2004 and 17054 of 2004, setting aside order dated 9.2.2004 passed in the Revision Petition No. CMW 33 CAP 98 by the Minister of Cooperation on the ground that the Revision Petition filed by the appellants herein is barred by limitation and is contrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter KCS Act ). 3. Though the case has a chequered history, we refer to the facts in brief hereunder, which are required to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:- The appellants are small farmers who had availed a loan of ₹ 16,000/- from the Kadur Taluk Primary Co-Operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter the Bank ) by mortgaging their entire immoveable agricultural pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid in a single payment before 30.6.1983 interest and compound interest will be completely exempted Pursuant to this offer, the appellant paid to the Bank the entire remaining loan amount of ₹ 7050/- on 30.06.1983, excluding the interest as he had already deposited an amount of ₹ 9,000/- with the Karnataka Cooperative Society on 07.09.1981. 5. The learned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellants vide order dated 27.12.1983, and remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator, to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving proper notice to all the parties. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the respondents filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka, which was allowed by its judgment and order dated 29.11.1985. The learned High Court held on the issue of the appeal before the Tribunal being barred by limitation as under: While respondent-4 had filed his appealappeal No. 431 of 1981- after six years. Every one of the reasons on which those respondents sought of condonation of delay in filing their reading of the applications should have rejected that respondents 5 and 6 had not been served, had con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ummons on them was held as sufficient and the appellants were treated as ex parte. That being so, the observation of the Tribunal that the notices were not served upon the appellants is incorrect. In addition to this the Tribunal has failed to see that the 5th respondent appeared and consented for a decree. The appellants and the 5th respondent were living together under one roof. Hence it is difficult to believe the version of the appellants that they were not aware of the award. All that can be said in the instant case is that the explanation as to the ignorance of the award proceedings is opposed to the realities of life. 7. In the meanwhile, on 10.12.1985, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a certificate of sale under Rule 38(7) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter KCS Rules ) in favour of the auction purchaser S.V. Vijaydev (respondent no.6 herein), thereby confirming the sale of the lands of the appellants herein. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants preferred an appeal under Section 106 of the KCS Act before the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Chikmagalur District. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d date as in the circular dated 02.03.1984 and that therefore they have complied with the condition as laid out in the circular, it must have been the duty of the appellate authorities to examine the said contentions and then decide the matter keeping in mind the conditions of the said circular. The issue to be decided here is whether the petitioners claim to the interest waiver and consequent benefits are reasonable and tenable. It is seen that the amount of loan overdue is not really huge. Yet the Sale officer thought it fit to auction 1 acre and 07 guntas of land to recover a sum of ₹ 20, 367/- with interest. The sale was accepted for an offer of ₹ 40,650/- . .....From the above arguments it is seen that the sale Officer, ARCS AND DRCS, all along have latched on to technical considerations and have not analysed the matter objectively. It appears that their approach has been rather narrow and such long drawn litigation could have been avoided, had the authorities thought in a more rational manner instead of going into avoidable technicalities. I am of the opinion that the DRCS should have examined the facts and circumstances of the auction sale in the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the instance of the party, within six months. In the instant case, the revision petition was filed by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants were required to file a revision petition within six months from the date of confirmation of the same, since the sale is confirmed in 1985. The appellants could not have filed a revision in 1998, 13 years after the orders of confirmation. Even if it is held that suo moto at any time, the Government can exercise the powers of revision, then also, it has to be exercised within a reasonable time not beyond a period of three years.... Viewed from any angle, the revision petition allowed by the Hon ble Minister was clearly barred by time and the same is contrary to Section 108 of the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court held that no ground for interfering with the order of the single judge is made out and the appeals were dismissed. Hence, the present appeals. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. On the basis of the factual evidence on record produced before us, the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the rival legal contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, we have broadl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is transferred to them under the provisions of this Chapter. Chapter XII of the KCS Act pertains to Execution of Awards, Decrees, Orders and Decisions. Section 99 of the KCS Act deals with Enforcement of charge as under: 99. Enforcement of charge.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IX, or any other law for the time being in force, but without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided in this Act, the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf, may, on the application of a cooperative society, make an order directing the payment of any debt or outstanding demand due to the society by any member or past or deceased member, by sale of the property which is subject to a charge under sub-section (1) of section 32 Chapter XIII of the KCS Act pertains to Appeals, Review and Revision. Section 105 of the KCS Act provides for appeals to the Tribunal: 105. Appeals to the Tribunal.- Any person aggrieved by,- (c) any award of an Arbitrator under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 71; may, within sixty days from the date of the decision, award or order, as the case may be, appeal to the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and the said revision has not been filed within six months The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in V.N Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53 to contend that a statutory authority has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition beyond the period prescribed for presenting the petition unless an application for condonation of delay is filed. The learned counsel further contends that even in cases where no limitation period has been prescribed for exercising the revision power, it must be exercised within a reasonable period of time. The learned counsel places reliance upon the cases of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha Ors (1969) 2 SCC 187 and Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 352 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. H. Chandra Shekhar, on the other hand, contends that the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the Minister of Co-operation, Government of Karnataka in the Revision Petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The learned counsel places reliance upon the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.1975 was passed ex parte against the appellants. The circular dated 02.03.1984 issued by the Karnataka State Cooperative Land Development Bank on the basis of the government order, stated that the farmers who had become defaulters as on 30.06.1982 to the Taluk Co-operative Land Development Banks in the State, and continued being defaulters upto 30.06.1983 could repay the principal amount to such Banks, then in such cases, the State Government would bear the burden of the entire portion of the interest on such loans on behalf of the farmers and reimburse the same to such respective Banks. As is evident from the letter Annexure P3 , the appellants had repaid the entire principal amount within the date specified in the circular, which fact has not been contested by the respondents. The Auction sale of the property in question was conducted on 27.05.1981, and the confirmation of the sale was ordered on 10.12.1985 without considering the relevant fact of repayment of principal amount due to the Bank within the time stipulated in the notification issued by the Bank referred to supra. The appellants had informed the Bank regarding the repayment of loan on 29.06.1983. The appellate aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same The learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.6 contends that statutory authorities in general do not have the right to condone delay without an application for condonation of delay, whereas it is clear that the said judgment was to apply only to consumer forums, and the same has no application to the facts of the instant case. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the case of Santoshkumar Patil referred to supra is also misplaced. It was observed in that case as under: It seems to be fairly settled that if a statue does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein. (emphasis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auction sale, shows that confirmation of the auction of the immoveable property was grossly illegal. The said sale was in contravention of the notification issued by the State Government of Karnataka in respect of the borrowers of the Bank, which sought to waive off the interest on the principal amount if the same was paid by 30.06.1983. The said notification was issued on the basis of a government order, traceable to Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we have recorded the finding that the sale of the property and the confirmation of the auction sale is contrary to the notification referred to supra and law and has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. The action of the sale officer has resulted in the deprivation of the right to livelihood of the appellants who are small landowners, guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to livelihood has been held to be an integral part of right to life, most notably in the landmark judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Muncipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 , wherein it has been held as under: 32. An equally important facet of that right is the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e state government. The contention of the auction purchaser that no such application for condonation of delay of the belated revision petition has been filed by the appellants is a hyper technical one and cannot be sustained. Where the state government has exercised its statutory power under Section 108 of the KCS Act after satisfying itself that the sale of the mortgaged immoveable property of the appellants in the public auction is illegal, it is not open for the respondents to contest the same by urging technical grounds, especially in light of the fact that the power conferred upon the state government under Section 108 of the KCS Act is suo moto and the same can be exercised at any time . Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, in the absence of an application for condonation of delay, we hold that the exercise of the power by the Minister for Co-operation, State Government of Karnataka must be taken as a suo moto exercise of power by him. Answer to Point No. 2 21. It was next contended by Mr. S.N. Bhat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 (the auction purchaser) that the interest of the auction purchaser should be protected, as he i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and objections to the same. Further, it is an admitted factual position that the appellants had repaid the principal loan amount as on 30.06.1983 itself. The confirmation of the auction sale was ordered on 10.12.1985. It was upon the auction purchaser to assess the circumstances in which the auction of the property was being conducted. Rule 38 of the KCS Rules, 1960, which pertains to Attachment and Sale of Immoveable Property, provides as under: 38. Attachment and Sale of Immoveable Property (2) (d) Proclamation of sale shall be published by affixing a notice in the office of the Recovery Officer and the taluka office at least thirty days before the date fixed for the sale land also by beat of drum in the village (on two consecutive days previous to the date of sale and on the day of sale prior to the commencement of the sale). Such proclamation shall, where attachment is required before sale, be made after the attachment has been effected. Notice shall also be given to the applicant and defaulter. The proclamation shall state the time and place of sale and specify as fairly and accurately as possible :-- (i) the property to be sold, (ii) any encumbrance t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
