Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral):— In this writ petition notice dated 26.9.2018 issued by the office of Tehsildar-cum-Sub-Registrar, Ramsahar, respondent No. 8 herein for recovery of the outstanding loan amount against the petitioner has been sought to be quashed and set aside on the grounds inter alia that consequent upon the ownership of the mortgaged property transferred in the name of respondent No. 7-Bank, the same will be sold in open auction and rendering thereby the family of the petitioner roofless. A direction has also been sought to be issued to keep in abeyance the action sought to be taken against the petitioner vide notice under challenge till the respondent-Bank formulates one time settlement scheme in tune with the one framed by the State Bank of India.
2. By issuing notice of motion in this writ petition on 15.5.2019, dasti notice was ordered to be issued to respondent No. 7 for the limited purpose as to why the benefit of one time settlement scheme (OTS), extended by the Bank to similarly placed farmers, can not be extended in favour of the petitioner also so that he can discharge his liability towards outstanding loan amount.
3. On the previous date, respondent No. 7-Bank had put in appearance through Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, who had sought time to have instructions in the matter, in terms of the order dated 15.5.2019. Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel has placed on record the written instructions, which, prima facie, reveal that opportunity has been granted by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner to avail the benefit under one time settlement scheme. He, however, failed to do so. He even failed to do so after the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 8, Tehsildar Ramsahar-cum-Sub Registrar. It is now the mortgaged property stands transferred in favour of respondent No. 7 on 2.4.2019. The Bank is now owner thereof and the same, as per the written instructions, will be disposed of, as per the procedure prescribed, in open auction so that the outstanding loan amount can be realized from the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be not entitled to the benefit of OTS Scheme in future as well. We are satisfied with the position stated in the written instructions. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has raised the loan from respondent No. 7-Bank. He has failed to adhere to the time schedule prescribed for the payment of the loan amount. He even has failed to avail the benefit of one time settlement scheme.
4. Being so, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in this writ petition, however, keeping in view the petitioner is a farmer and dependent upon his holdings, which he had mortgaged with the respondent-Bank to secure the payment of the loan amount coupled with the factum of the possession of the mortgaged land has been taken over by the respondent-Bank, however, the same not put to auction as yet, we expect from the respondent-bank to accommodate the petitioner, in case he approaches by way of a representation and undertakes to deposit atleast 50% of the outstanding loan amount within a reasonable time i.e. two months from that day and further undertakes to repay the remaining loan amount in installments or in lump sum within six months thereafter. The decision to put the mortgaged property of the petitioner to auction shall be deferred, however, failure to do so by the petitioner would entail in consequential action by the respondent-Bank to recover the outstanding amount.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
Comments