KISHORI LAL versus SALES OFFICER, DISTRICT LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 24-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KISHORI LAL 
v. 
SALES OFFICER, DISTRICT LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK AND ORS. 
AUGUST 24,2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
M.P. Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Adhiniyam, 1966-Sections 18(2) and 27-
M.P. Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Rules, 1967-Rule 15-Contract of loan-By 
C agriculturist-land mortgaged as security-Failure to repay-Recovery 
proceedings-Auction sale of mortgaged land-Agriculturist showing from 
documents that he was minor on the date when loan was taken-First appeal 
decided against the agriculturist-Second appeal decided in his favour by 
Board of Revenue on the grounds of non-service of notice of auction, non-
compliance of statutory requirements and his being minor at the time of 
D contract of loan-Writ Petition decided in favour of Bank by High Court-
letters Patent appeal held not maintainable-Jn appeal, held: In view of 
non-service of notice of auction, non-compliance of statutory requirements, 
and initial contract of loan being void ab initio by reason of the agriculturist 
being. minor on that date, auction sale was not permissible-Direction to set 
E aside auction on condition of agriculturist depositing the entire auction 
money with interest-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142. 
F 
Appeal-letters Patent Appeal-Maintainability-Held: Such appeal 
would be maintainable if the Writ was filed either under Article 226 or 227-
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226 and 227. 
Practice and Procedure-Finding of fact by statutory authority-Not 
questioned before courts below-Question raised for the first time before 
Supreme Court-Permissibility-Held: Not permissible. 
Appellant an agriculturist, took a loan from the Bank. By way of security, 
he mortgaged his agricultural holdings. On failure to repay the loan, recovery 
proceedings were initiated. Auction was held of the mortgaged land and the 
same was sold to auction purchaser. Appellant preferred appeal before the 
authorities. He prc;duced two documents showing that he was minor at the 
time when the loan was taken. Appeal was dismissed. Second appeal was 
allowed by the Board of Revenue holding that auction notice was not served 
274 
KISHORI LAL, .. SALES OFFICER, DISTRICT LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK 
275 
upon the appellant; that statutory requirements of Section 18 (2) (b) of Land A 
Development Bank Act, 1966 and Rule IS(d) of M.P.Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas 
Bank Rules, 1967 were not complied with; that service of proclamation report 
was not certified; and that the appellant was a minor at the time the contract 
was entered into. 
Writ Petition was filed by the Sales Officer of the Bank and the same B 
was allowed by Single Judge of High Court holding that irregularities in the 
auction cannot be a ground for impeaching the title of the auction purchaser 
in terms ~fSection 27 of the 1966 Act; and that non-service of notice was a 
procedural irregularity. Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by Division 
Bench of High Court holding that the same was not maintainable since Single C 
Judge had exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 
In appeal to this Court respondent inter alia contended that Board of 
Revenue could not have held that appellant was minor because the documents 
on which reliance was placed, were inadmissible. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. Single Judge of the High Court committed an error in 
interfering with the findings of fact arrived at by the Board of Revenue. The 
Division Bench of the High Court also wrongly dismissed the LPA without 
noticing that an appeal would be maintainable if the writ petition was filed E 
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution oflndia. (281-B-C) 
Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar and Ors. v. Niha/chand 
Waghajibhai Shaha and Ors., (19931 Supp.I SCC 11, relied on. 
2. The Board of Revenue under the M.P. Land Revenue Code is the final F 
court of fact. Holding of auction is governed by the provisions of M.P. Sahkari · 
Bhoomi Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1966. The Board of Revenue, in regard to 
service of notice, has clearly come to the. conclusion that the statutory 
. !~equirements envisaged und·er Section 18(2) of the 1966 Act and Rule 15 of 
M.P. Sahkari Boomi Vikas Bank Rules, 1967 have not been complied with, G 
by reason whereof the appellant had not been served with the notice. He had 
not been given an opportunity of hearing. (279-B-DI 
3. In regard to the question of minority the appellant had filed two 
documents before the Joint Registrar. Recor

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