Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.12.1989 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4 and to quash the auction dated 16.1.1988 made by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession over the petitioner’s land in dispute.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has taken a loan of Rs. 14,000/- from Allahabad Bank in the year 1981. Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 4,400/- on 17.6.1987 towards the loan. On account of drought and unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not deposit the remaining amount so the bank has directed the Tehsil authorities to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner was not served any kind of notice or citation by the respondents and on 15.1.1988 the Amin (Collection) came to the petitioner and has received a sum of Rs. 2,200/- and a receipt to that effect was issued, which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The proceeding regarding recovery of the aforesaid amount was initiated without any information to the petitioner by the Tehsil Authorities and Tehsil authorities have auctioned the petitioner’s holding of Plot No. 149 area 2 acre 85 decimal on 16.1.1988. When the petitioner deposited Rs. 2,200/- on 15.1.1988, the Collection Amin has not informed anything to the petitioner regarding the auction and has assured the petitioner that the said amount will be deposited and he was permitted to deposit the remaining amount within a period of one month but the respondents authorities in an arbitrary manner behind the back of the petitioner has auctioned the property of the petitioner on 16.1.1988. The aforesaid proceeding of auction was admittedly behind the back of the petitioner without any notice and citation.

3. When on 25th March, 1988, the petitioner who was working in Jabalpur for the purposes of livelihood came back then he was informed that his land has already been auctioned. Then immediately petitioner moved an application to the Collector, Banda, who rejected the said application on the ground that according to the procedure under Rule 285-I of the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952, it provides for filing an objection before the Commissioner. Therefore, the application filed before the Collector is not maintainable and it is open to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner. Then he immediately filed an objection under Rule 285-I of the aforesaid Rules before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. The said objection was accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating all the relevant facts that the petitioner has got no knowledge and no notice was ever served to the petitioner before the auction of the property of the petitioner and one day before some amount was taken by the Collection Amin and the same was deposited. The respondent No. 4 vide its order dated 4.12.1989, rejected the objection of the petitioner on the ground that objection of the petitioner was filed beyond time, holding therein that in the eye of law the objection under Section 285-I provides that objection has to be filed within a period of 30 days and admittedly, the same has been filed after a lapse of 30 days. Rule 285-I is being reproduced below :

“285-I. (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it, but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake.”

4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that abservations and findings to this effect recorded by the respondent No. 4 is not sustainable in law as it is w