The main legal point established in the judgment is that the auction sale was void and nullity due to the absence of a proper sale proclamation and substantial injury suffered by the petitioners.

S. K. Singh, J.—These are two connected writ petitions on the same cause of action challenging same impugned orders and therefore, both have been taken up together and are being decided accordingly. Writ Petition No. 4451 of 1986 is being made as leading case. Facts and details as given in both writ petitions are the same and therefore, they are being collectively mentioned.

2. Challenge in both petitions is the auction sale dated 24.3.1979, sale certificate dated 19.2.1980 rejection of petitioner’s objection under Rule 285 (1) of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by the Commissioner by his order dated 15.12.1979 and dismissal of their revision by the Board of Revenue by order dated 21.11.1985. In support of Writ Petition No. 4450 of 1986, Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned senior advocate appeared and in opposition, Sri V. B. Upadhyaya, learned senior advocate submitted his arguments. In Writ Petition No. 4451 of 1986, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior advocate and in opposition thereof, Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior advocate has been heard.

3. Issue in the writ petition is the validity and the propriety of auction sale of three houses, i.e., house Nos. 16/20, 16/20B and 16/20C, situated in Civil Lines, Kanpur. There was a registered partnership firm in the name of M/s. Kanpur Twin Manufacturing Company. Recovery certificate dated 2.12.1977 (No. 328) for a sum of Rs. 49,118.73 pertaining to the recovery of Central Sales Tax and another recovery certificate dated 29.12.1977 (No. 341) for a sum of Rs. 23,885.31 pertaining to U. P. Sales Tax was issued in the name of aforesaid firm. Pursuant to the aforesaid recovery certificates, it is claimed that proceedings or attachment and auction of the aforesaid properties took place, in which M/s. Narendra & Company, who happens to be respondent No. 6 in both petitions, became the auction purchaser being highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 1,61,000. The auction sale was confirmed and sale certificates were also issued on 19.2.1980. Against the aforesaid auction sale objections were filed before the Commissioner under Rule 285 (1) of the Rules which was rejected, upon which, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 4450 of 1986 filed revision before the Board of Revenue but the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 4451 of 1986 came to this Court directly by filing writ petition but thereafter, he withdraw the same with the purpose to file revision, upon which, he also filed revision before the Board of Revenue. Both revisions have been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by orders dated 21.11.1985 as not maintainable and thus, both the order of the Board of Revenue and that of the Commissioner and the auction sale are under challenge in both writ petitions.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have been heard at length. As the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both parties in both writ petitions either for petitioners or for the respondents are more or less same and therefore, instead of referring the arguments of both sides separately, arguments as has been advanced in both petitions either for or against, is being summarised.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to challenge the auction proceedings and the impugned orders submits the following grounds :

(i) Demand made by the sales tax authorities was ultimately withdrawn and therefore, no recovery remained and thus the auction sale will become void and will automatically fall through.

(ii) The recovery proceedings as the proclamation reveals was in the name of Jagarnath who was already dead on 24.8.1976 and thus their being no serve on all the heirs of Jagarnath, auction becomes void ab initio.

(iii) The proclamation pursuant to which proceeding has taken is only a notice of proclamation of attachment and there is no proclamation for sale at all and therefore, on this count itself entire auction proceeding is without jurisdiction and unauthorised.

(iv) In the event, all heirs of Jagar