The legality of the confirmation of an auction sale before the expiry of thirty days and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to remand the matter to S.D.O. were the central legal points established in the judgment.

S. U. Khan, J.—Agricultural land comprised in plot Nos. 453/0.202 hectares, 673/0.131 hectares and 674/0.069 hectares (total area 0.402 hectares) situate in village Sihaispar, Tehsil Bansgaon District Gorakhpur belonging to Smt. Shahnaz proprietor/partner of M/s. Shahnaz Textiles, Sihaispar, Bansgaon, Gorakhpur was auctioned in proceedings for recovery of loan which M/s. Shahnaz Textiles had taken from Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation, (U.P.F.C. in short) Gorakhpur. The dues were recovered like arrears of land revenue. Auction took place on 30.5.2002 in which petitioner was highest bidder. His bid was of Rs. 1,07,000. He deposited the entire amount within time prescribed by relevant rules. Sale was confirmed by Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O. in short) on 8.6.2002, i.e., within thirty days from the date of sale. Petitioner deposited 1/4th of the amount for which he had purchased the property on the date of sale, i.e., 30.5.2002 and remaining 3/4th of the amount was deposited on 8.6.2002. Auction Officer/Naib Tehsildar on 8.6.2002 gave a report that entire amount had been deposited by the petitioner and that earlier auction was held twice but no one turned to bid. Naib Tehsildar recommended for acceptance of the auction sale. Tehsildar also made similar recommendation and S.D.O. on 8.6.2002 passed one word order "accepted". It appears that in the proclamation of sale the estimated value of the property was shown to be Rs. 2,49,000. Thereafter on 10.7.2002 U.P.F.C., i.e., respondent No. 4, filed objections before the Commissioner under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Rules. The main objection was that sale could legally be confirmed only after thirty days but in-fact it had been confirmed only after nine days hence, it was illegal and void. Some minor irregularities in the sale were also pressed into service and it was also stated that sale consideration was inadequate. It appears that on 26.6.2002, respondent No. 4 U.P.F.C. had filed some objections before S.D.O. also and the debtor M/s Shahnaz Textiles had also filed some objections before S.D.O. on 18.6.2002. Objections before Commissioner were registered as Sale Petition/Objection No. 159/G of 2002, Manager, U.P.F.C. v. State of U.P. and others. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur through order dated 31.3.2004 allowed the objections, set aside the auction sale and its confirmation dated 30.5.2002/8.6.2002 and the matter was remitted to S.D.O. for disposal in accordance with observations made in the earlier part of the order.

2. The sole ground on which the Commissioner set aside the sale was that the sale had been confirmed before the expiry of thirty days.

3. Rules 285-I and 285J of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules are quoted 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.

(ii) [ }................not quoted

(iii) .......................not quoted

["285J. On the expiration of thirty days from the date of the sale if no such application as is mentioned in Rule 285-H or Rule 285-I, has been made or if such application has been made and rejected by the Collector or the Commissioner, the Collector shall pass an order confirming the sale after satisfying himself that the purchase of land in question by the bidder would not be in contravention of the provisions of Section 154. Every order passed under this rule shall be final.]

4. In view of Rule 285J it is clear that auction sale cannot be confirmed before thirty days and the order dated 8.6.2002 passed by S.D.O. accepting the sale, if it amounts to confirmation of sale, was bad in law. However, if confirmation of sale is illegal but there is no illegalit