Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Commissioner respondent No. 2 in objections filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under Rule 285-I of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolitional and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, in relation to an auction conducted for sale of plot No. 273 situate in village at Buxi Uparhar, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Allahabad. The order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue in revision.

2. The background in which the auction took place is that the respondent No. 6 - Dinesh Kumar Pandey took a loan from the U.P. Financial Corporation to set up a Small Plastic Production Unit. He defaulted in repayment of the loan, as a result whereof, the Financial Corporation issued a recovery certificate.

3. The plot in dispute was mortgaged against the said loan and as such the same was put to auction to realise the dues as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The auction for immovable property is conducted under Section 284 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, read with under Rules 281 to 286 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952.

4. The petitioner claims to have participated in the said auction proceedings on 25th June, 2002, in which one Smt. Sobha Yadav was the highest bidder. The auction was however cancelled on the ground of inadequacy of the bid amount and the property was again put to sale on 7th September, 2002, on which date the petitioner succeeded in offering an amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- for the land in dispute and the bid was knocked down in his favour.

5. The auction proceedings were challenged by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by moving an objection under Rule 285-I as provided for under the 1952 Rules, and the Commissioner, who is the competent authority, instead of deciding the matter himself remitted the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate who had conducted the auction. This order of the Commissioner dated 10th December, 2002 was subjected to challenge in writ petition No. 7370 of 2003 by the respondent No. 4 Smt. Dhanpatti and the respondent No. 5 Sarla Devi. This petition was allowed on 30th November, 2004 on the ground that it is the Commissioner who has to decide objection and the same cannot be remitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate under the provisions of Rule 285-I of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952. A rider was also put in that till the decision is taken on the objection, no further constructions shall be made by the petitioner auction purchaser.

6. The matter reached the learned Commissioner once again, and the same proceeded before him. The respondent owner of the plot took a clear plea that the bid amount was inadequate as the property was worth Rs. 10 lacs, and that the auction was conducted in violation of the rules. It was also urged by the owner that Dinesh Kumar Pandey had misutilized the documents and title deed of the property by placing it in the custody of the Financial Corporation for the purpose of mortgage, and that the recovery was absolutely illegal. No notice was given about the auction nor any attachment was carried out or proclamation issued to the said respondent. There were only two participants in the auction and one of them was the petitioner who is an employee in the Collectorate which fact is admitted by him. He is a clerk in the office of the District Development Officer, hence, he could not have participated in the auction in view of the bar operating by virtue of Rule 285-B of the 1952 Rules.

7. The aforesaid objection was supplemented after remand by the High Court where it was stated that the recovery certificate which had been sent by the U.P. Financial Corporation indicated that the price of the property was Rs. 8,35,000/- and that the description of the property and address was not correctly shown. The notice was not received by the respondent which was sent on a wrong address deliberately.

8. In Paragraph 18 of the said supplementary objection it was categorically state