By the Court.—Heard Sri Veer Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.P. Srivastava on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1.

3. The brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are that the respondent No, 1 took an agriculture loan of Rs. 59,000/- from the Chandauli Branch of Union Bank of India. The loan was repayable in 17 equal half yearly installments. The respondent No. 1, who was writ petitioner, committed default in depositing the installments, due to which recovery proceedings were initiated at the instance of the bank for recovery of the outstanding amount as arrears of land revenue. A citation to appear was issued on 25th November, 1995. In pursuance of the citation to appear, writ-petitioner was arrested and after deposited Rs. 30,000/- he was released. Writ-petitioner thereafter represented the matter to the bank and also filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the recovery proceedings.

4. In the writ petition, under an interim order he was directed to deposit 50% of the amount and to furnish security for the balance amount. A sum of Rs. 9,500/- was deposited by the writ-petitioner on 22.1.1996 and a security was also furnished. The interim order in the writ petition could not be extended, due to which the recovery proceedings revived and sale proclamation was issued fixing for sale. Ultimately auction took place on 12th March, 1997, and the appellant is stated to have offered the highest amount of Rs. 60,400/-. The Tehsildar conducted the sale and the Sub Divisional Officer has confirmed the sale on 31st March, 1997.

5. Against non-extension/grant of interim order in writ petition, the writ petitioner filed an Special Appeal No. 260 of 1997. The Division Bench passed an order for deposit of the entire sale price with 5% interest. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench in special appeal, the writ-petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 63,420/- on 27.5.1997. In the meantime it appears that the Sub Divisional Officer also executed a sale deed in favour of auction purchaser.

6. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that amount deposited by the writ-petitioner i.e. Rs. 64,420/- in the treasury is still lying there and has not been withdrawn by either of the party. The auction purchaser was subsequently impleaded as a party and he also filed his counter affidavit.

7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition vide its judgment and order dated 11.11.2003. Learned Single Judge took the view that sale was never confirmed by the Collector as required by the rules and confirmation made by the Sub Divisional Officer was of no legal consequence. The writ petition was allowed. The auction sale, confirmation of sale and consequential sale deed have been set aside.

8. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge that the auction purchaser has filed this appeal.

9. Sri Veer Singh Advocate on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order, contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Sub Divisional Officer was not competent to grant approval to the auction sale is not correct. He submits that Sub Divisional Officer by virtue of notification issued under Section 3(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was fully empowered to exercise all functions of Collector under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. He has also relied upon the notification dated 11th June, 1953, published on 13th June, 1953 in the U.P. Gazette, whereby all Sub Divisional Officers in the whole State, except for four districts, were empowered to discharge all the functions of the Collector. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in JT 2005(5) SC 467, Kedar Nath Dubey (D) by Lrs. and others v. Sheo Narain Dubey (D) by Lrs. and others.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent supporting the order of the