The auction sale of a premium of a lease is not complete as soon as the highest bid is accepted and the sale is knocked down in favor of the purchaser by the officer conducting the sale. The legal right shall be acquired only on the acceptance of the highest bid in the matter of the nazul property as per the auction notice and the rules of Nazul Manual.

( 1 ) THIS is second civil appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 30. 8. 1979 passed by the Vth Additional Distinct Judge, Hardoi in civil Appeal No. 24 of 1979 allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6. 1. 1979 passed by the IVth Additional Munsif, Hardoi in Regular Suit No. 121 of 1978.

( 2 ) I have heard Shri P. L. Mishra for the appellant and Shri Anuj Kumar Srivastava, for the respondent.

( 3 ) IT appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff to use land shown by letters aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ka, Kha, in the site plan situated in Line Puram, Hardoi and measuring 1726 Sq. Feet and also restraining the defendant from re-auctioning the sale and for directing the defendant to execute the lease-deed in respect of the said land in favour of the plaintiff. The disputed plot is nazul land. It was auctioned by Nagar Palika, Hardoi on 23. 3. 1978. The plaintiff participated in the auction of the nazul land and his bid at the auction was highest at Rs. 5,000/ -. The auction was concluded in favour of the plaintiff who deposited 1/4th amount at the spot. The conditions of the auction sale were read over at the time of the auction and its copy was also placed at the Notice-board at Nagar Palika, Hardoi. The entire proceedings of the auction took place in the presence of the Executive Officer and Prabhari Adhikari and other concerned officials of Nagar Palika and all the Rules and sub-rules pertaining to auction were followed. Subsequently, the Nagar Palika, Hardoi, communicated the plaintiff that the lease of the land would soon be executed according to law after getting the remaining amount deposited. The plaintiff went to the Nagar Palika Office to deposit the balance amount but the said amount was neither got deposited nor the lease-deed was executed. In the meantime one Radhey Shyam moved an application before the District Officer, Hardoi to cancel the auction and to conduct the auction again. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to get the lease-deed executed in his favour.

( 4 ) THE case of the defendant-respondent is that the disputed land was put to auction in which bid of the plaintiff was highest. It was alleged that the bid was subject to approval of the administrator and the remaining 3/4th amount could only be deposited when the bid was approved by the Administrator. The Administrator did not accept the bid of the plaintiff and he ordered for re-auction of the plot. It was admitted that Radhey Shyam had moved an application on 23. 3. 1978. It is contended by the defendant-respondent that the plaintiff did not acquire any right by making highest bid of the auction because the bid was not approved by the administrator, which was one of the conditions of the auction.

( 5 ) FOLLOWING issues were framed :

" (i) Whether the proceedings of auction were completed in favour of plaintiff ? If not, its effect ? (ii) Whether the suit has been under-valued and the Court Fee paid is insufficient ? (iii) Whether the lease deed can be executed in favour of the plaintiff by getting Rs. 3,500/-deposited from him ? (iv) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?"

( 6 ) THE learned Munsif decided Issue Nos. (i) and (iii) in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and decreed the suit with costs.

( 7 ) THE defendant-respondent filed an appeal. The appeal has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 30. 8. 1979.

( 8 ) THE learned first appellate Judge formulated a point for determination which is as follows :

"whether the auction of the disputed land became final on the highest bid of the plaintiff ? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the lease deed of the disputed land executed by the defendant in his favour after depositing the balance amount of Rs. 3,500/-"

( 9 ) THE contention of the plaintiff-appellant is