Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva auction purchaser in auction proceedings dated 17.11.2004 has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner Allahabad dated 21.11.2005 setting aside the order of confirmation of the sale of the aforesaid auction proceedings and further directing the District Magistrate, Allahabad to proceed in accordance with law. Further prayer has been made that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on Plot No. 4-A/4(1 A/A) Hashimpur Road, Allahabad, measuring area 1877.6 Sq. yard.

2. Brief background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that private respondent had failed to discharge their liabilities of payment of statutory Labour dues and hence the District Magistrate, Allahabad issued citation under the provisions of U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act, pursuant to recovery certificate issued by the Labour Tribunal Allahabad and Jaipur (Rajasthan) for a sum of Rs. 41,61,351 + 10% collection charges. It has been contended that as said statutory dues at no point of time had been paid even after issuance of recovery certificate and citation, the property/vacant land of the private respondents was attached by the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 13.8.2004 qua property situated at 4-A Hashimpur Road, Allahabad. It has been contended that even after attachment when the statutory dues was not paid then auction has been held as contemplated under the relevant provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules pertaining to sale of immovable property. Petitioner has contended that auction proceedings took place on 17.11.2004 wherein he was highest bidder as his bid was to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- . Petitioner has contended that respondents filed writ petition before this Court challenging the auction dated 17.11.2004 on various grounds being writ petition No. 51297 of 2004 and said respondents were relegated by this Court for pursuing alternative remedy by preferring objection under Rule 285 (I) of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules, 1952. Thereafter it has been contended that objection has been filed on 16.12.2004 and it has also been contended that though the aforementioned objection has been filed on behalf of Alok Mitra and Ashok Mitra, Dipak Mitra, Manmohan Mitra and Smt. Madhurima Ghosh but none of the persons except Alok Mitra signed the vakalatnama. Petitioner has contended that no such intimation of filing objection was ever intimated to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate under this impression that no objection has been filed confirmed the sale on 21.12.2004 and sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. It has been contended that Alok Mitra filed application and affidavit for withdrawal of aforesaid objection and pursuant thereto Divisional Commissioner on 4.1.2005 dismissed the said objection filed under Rule 285 (I) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 as withdrawn. Petitioner has contended that in the meantime on 01.04.2005 he moved an application for getting the said property converted into free-hold. Petitioner has contended that subsequently same was converted into free-hold in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner has also given detail of selling the said property to various other persons. Further petitioner has also contended that while process of execution of sale deed from one person to another person was going on application were filed by the private respondents for refund of amount in excess to the realization of the amount as mentioned in the citation on following dates. (1) 11.01.2005-Alok Mitra and Dipak Mitra (2) 28.1.2005-Manmohan Mitra and Alok Mitra (3) 7.3.2005-Dipak Mitra (4) 26.5.2005 Dipak Mitra, Manmohan Mitra and Ashok Mitra and it has also been contended that based on said application moved by the private respondents 1/4th share of late Alok Mitra and Dipak Mitra was handed over to them and rest 1/4th shar