B. S. SHESHAGIRI SETTY & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS.

Citation: [2015] 13 S.C.R. 1099 · Decided: 15-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 13 S.C.R.1099 
B. S. SHESHAGIRI SETTY & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8663-8664 of 2015) 
OCTOBER 15, 2015 
A 
B 
[T. S. THAKUR AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - ss. 89 
and 108 - Loan taken by appellants-farmers from Co- c 
Operative Bank - By mortgaging their agricultural property 
as security -
Failure to repay the loan - Arbitration 
proceedings - Ex-parte award in favour of Bank directing 
recovery of loan by selling of the mortgaged property -
Auction sale of the property on 27.5.1981-ln the meantime, 
D 
Government notification notifying to waive off the interest 
amount on the loan taken by the borrowers, if they paid the 
principal amount by 30. 6. 1983 - Appellants paid the loan 
amount- Confirmation of the sale on 10. 12. 1985-Appel/ants 
challenged the confirmation of sale and the same was E 
dismissed - Review petition u/r.38(5)(a) of Co-operative 
Societies Rules challenging the confirmation dismissed as 
not maintainable - Revision petition u/s. 108 before Deputy 
Registrar, Co-operative Societies dismissed as not 
maintainable - Subsequent revision petition u/s. 108 before F 
the Minister of Co-operation allowed setting aside 
confirmation of sale - Writ petition by auction purchaser as 
well as the State challenging the order of Minister - Single 
Judge of High Court quashed the order of the Minister- Writ 
appeals dismissed by Division Bench of High Court on the 
G 
ground that the Revision before the Minister was barred by 
time- On appeal, held: When justice is at stake, courts should 
not adopt a technical or pedantic approach - s. 108 confers 
power on the State Government to pass any order in case of H 
. 1099 
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 13 S.C.R. 
A any miscarriage of justice in the present case as the 
confirmation of.sale was grossly illegal and in contravention 
of the government notification - The action of the sale officer 
has resulted in deprivation of the right to livelihood of the 
appellants guaranteed u/Art. 21 of the Constitution- Hence, 
B the present case faffs squarely within the ambit of s.108 -
Moreover, the appellants also cannot be held responsible 
for the delay as constant litigation has been carried on by 
them -
s. 108 confers power of revision on the State 
Government suo moto at time - The Act being a special 
C legislation, by virtue of s.29(2) of Limitation Act, power to 
condone the delay is available with the State Government-
The exercise of power uls. 108 by the Minister must be taken 
as suo moto exercise of power - The approach of the High 
0 
Court was thus, highly pedantic and technical - In the facts 
of the case auction-purchaser cannot be said to be a bona 
fide purchaser and hence his rights as auction purchaser 
cannot be protected - Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 29(2). 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. If a statute does not prescribe the time 
limit for exerci~e of revisional power, it must be exercised 
within a reasonable time frame. In the instant case, it is 
evident that constant litigation has been carried on by 
F the appellants, and therefore they cannot be accused of 
suddenly waking up after 13 years to claim their land. 
Further, in the context of limitation, it has been held by 
this Court in a catena of cases that when what is at stake 
is justice, then a technical or pedantic approach should 
G not be adopted by the Courts to do justice when there is 
miscarriage of justice caused to a public litigant. [Para 
16] [1122-F-H; 1123-A] 
1.2 Section 108 of the KCS Act confers the power 
H on the State Government to pass any order as it may 
B. S. SHESHAGIRI SETTY & ORS. v. STATE OF 
1101 
KARNATAKA& ORS. 
deem fit in case there has been a miscarriage of justice. A' 
The instant case falls squarely within the ambit of Section 
108 of the KCS Act. The appellants have been rendered 
landless for more than two decades even after repaying 
the loan amount. This amounts to gross miscarriage of 
justice caused to the appellants. [Para 17] (1123-F-G] 
B 
1.3 In the instant case, the fact of repayment of the 
principal loan amount to the Bank before the 
confirmation of the auction sale, shows that confirmation 
of the auction of the immoveable property was grossly C 
illegal. The said sale was in contravention of the 
notification issued by the State Government in respect 
of the borrowers of the Bank, which sought to waive off 
the interest on the principal amount

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.