Son Fails To Undo Auction Of Family Farmland Over Father's Loan, As MP HC Finds No Patent Illegality Shown

The petitioner challenged the auction of agricultural land—Survey Nos. 389 and 405, measuring 1.05 hectares in total—which had been mortgaged to the District Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Shivpuri, as security for a loan obtained by his father in 1988.

The father died in 1993.

The Bank auctioned the land on 16 May 2007, confirmed the sale on 11 July 2007, and issued a sale certificate to respondent No. 5 on 2 August 2007.

The petitioner alleged that the legal heirs were not properly notified, including because a notice dated 17 March 2007 was issued in the deceased borrower’s name.

An appeal before the Joint Registrar was dismissed on 4 August 2008; a civil suit seeking substantially similar relief was dismissed on 15 February 2010, with the civil court finding the suit barred by the applicable statutory framework.

Sections 26 and 28 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Act, 1999, provide for the sale of charged property and confirmation of sale; under the statutory scheme, a person with an interest in the property may seek to have the sale set aside in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and a confirmed sale has the consequences prescribed by the Act.

Sections 64 and 82 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, provide for reference of specified disputes—including certain claims concerning dues and legal representatives of deceased members—to the Registrar, and restrict civil-court jurisdiction over disputes required to be referred, subject to statutory exceptions.

The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to Article 226 jurisdiction, but is relevant to the Court’s discretion; writ interference may be appropriate in cases such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, while disputed factual matters ordinarily require determination through the appropriate forum.

The Court applied the principles stated in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771.

The Court treated the allegation that notice was issued in the deceased borrower’s name as relevant, but held that it did not, without examination of the applicable procedure and service record, establish that the auction was void.

Resolving the disputed questions concerning notice, the legal heirs’ knowledge, the debt, and the auction would require examination of the Bank’s records and other evidence.

The prior civil proceedings did not conclusively determine every issue on the merits because the suit had been dismissed on maintainability grounds; however, they also did not entitle the petitioner to reopen the controversy automatically in writ proceedings.

Given the statutory framework and the absence of a demonstrated patent illegality on the material before it, the Court declined to undertake a fresh factual adjudication under Article 226.

It declined to quash the sale certificate dated 2 August 2007 or the auction proceedings and dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.