Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—By this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.7.2004 and 27.9.2002 passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. Board of Revenue and Commissioner Bareilly Region, Bareilly respectively.

2. It is stated that WIMCO Ltd. had sponsored a scheme for plantation of poplar plants in Bareilly region and other areas in which farmers of area were supplied plants at the instance of WIMCO Company and on the recommendation of WIMCO Ltd. the Bank had advanced loan to the farmers who were interested in plantation of poplar plants in the aforesaid region. Under the aforesaid scheme the Punjab National Bank had advanced loan to the petitioners on the recommendation of WIMCO Ltd. in tune of Rs. 72,500/- to be payable in 5 yearly instalments from 1988 to 1992. The aforesaid loan was not given to the petitioners directly, rather the loan amount was paid to the WIMCO Ltd. which had supplied the poplar plants for plantation. The aforesaid amount was disbursed to the petitioners under the aforesaid scheme in different years. It is stated that the plants which were planted by the petitioners were not fully grown and as per agreement WIMCO Ltd. had not purchased the poplar trees grown by the petitioners, accordingly the petitioners could not replay the amount of loan advanced to them. Although the scheme was not sponsored by State under which loan was given to the petitioners, instead thereof the loan was given the petitioners under cash credit facility scheme and Bank was not entitled to issue any recovery certificate for realisation of loan amount from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue but Bank has sent recovery certificate to the Collector, in pursuance of which Tehsildar issued citation to the petitioners. Against the aforesaid recovery, the petitioners have filed writ petition before this Court but meanwhile the opposite party No. 4 attached the land of the petitioners and ultimately put the land for auction. The petitioners had no knowledge about the date of auction and Tehsildar has auctioned the land of petitioners to the respondent No. 5 for amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-. However, when the petitioners came to know about the auction, they immediately filed objection under Rule 285 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules before Commissioner Bareilly Region, Bareilly but the Commissioner without any cogent reason has rejected the aforesaid objection of the petitioners vide order dated 27.2.2002. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly the petitioners have filed revision before Board of Revenue. Initially the Board of Revenue stayed the operation of order dated 27.9.2002 passed by Commissioner. Bareilly and summoned the records of the Court below but ultimately after hearing the petitioners and Counsel for opposite parties dismissed the same vide order dated 26.7.2004 impugned in the writ petition. It is stated that in spite of auction of the land in question the petitioners are still in possession but the respondent No. 5 has also sold the said land to other persons, therefore, the petitioners are apprehending that now transferees would disturb peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute.

3. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners in nut shell is that the land belonging to the petitioners namely Gata No. 289 area 1.135 hectare and Gata No. 11 area 3.218 hectare situated in village Sona Hega Nagla, Tehsil Aonla, District Bareilly is approximately 10 acres but the same has been auctioned in tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- only. The cost/market value of land was approximately at least 10 lacs at the time of auction but the same was auctioned merely for Rs. 2,60,000/- and authorities did not consider the sale price on the basis of present market value of the land while putting it to auction, in this way the aforesaid land of the petitioners was grabbed by the respondent No. 5 in collusion of Tehsil authorities. The sale price of land put to auction wa