Give Rs 5 lakh relief to man ‘duped’ at land auction: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, January 27

More than a decade after a bidder purchased “agriculture land” at an auction only to be told that it was “gair mumkin forest” and the sale deed could not be registered, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has not only rapped a bank for “sheer harassment of a citizen”, but also ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation.

Directions were also issued for refunding more than Rs 25 lakh deposited by petitioner Bhupinder Nagpal, along with 15 per cent annual interest, all other incidental charges and expenses incurred. For the purpose, Justice Jaishree Thakur set a month’s deadline.

Deprived of land

Value of rupee has depreciated over the past 11 years and with the same amount petitioner will be unable to purchase a similar piece of land. He has been deprived of the use of the land as well as not refunded amount illegally retained by the bank. —Justice Jaishree Thakur

Nagpal had moved the court through counsel Deepak Jindal seeking directions to the state of Punjab and other respondents to register the sale deed/sale certificate regarding the “agricultural land” in Ropar district purchased in a public auction held on January 12, 2012.

Among other things, Justice Thakur asserted that the petitioner was required to be compensated for mental agony and anguish, apart from the botheration of approaching officers and courts, for getting the sale deed registered and “to be put into possession of land, for which he was entitled to”.

Justice Thakur asserted that the petitioner purchased the property reflected in a public notice as agricultural land with construction thereon. But the public auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal officials could not be “made effective” since the revenue record reflected it to be “gair mumkin forest” which could not be partitioned.

Justice Thakur asserted it appeared that the petitioner had been duped of his hard earned money. The court failed to understand how the bank officials took such land as “mortgage as security” while advancing loan. The bank officers’ role was questionable and definitely required to be looked into. Justice Thakur added that the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser, believing that a public auction conducted by the DRT and bank officials would be genuine sale. But he was wronged by the authorities none other than the bank officials, since he was not able to put the land to use.

Before parting with the order, Justice Thakur added the bank on its own accord should have refunded the amount and got the sale certificate cancelled after its officials were made aware that the land was not agricultural, instead of driving the petitioner from pillar to post. As such, he was to be recompensed for the wrong committed upon him by the bank.