Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Mr Anshu Chodhary for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr Diwakar Rai Sharma, representing respondent No. 4. None appeared for respondent No. 3, though the case has been taken up in the revised list.

2. Writ petition is directed against the order impugned dated 5.11.1986 (Annexure - B) passed by respondent No. 2, SDM/Tehsildar, Sikandara Rau, Aligarh, and the order dated 5.11.1986 passed by respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra.

3. The respondent No. 2 has auctioned the attached property of the petitioner, at plot Nos. 38006 and 380-kha and 450, total area 25- 12-15. on 13.3.1986, which has been confirmed by respondent No. 2 on 9.6.1986. The petitioner filed an appeal/application before the Commissioner for setting aside the auction which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 5.11.1986 passed by respondent No. 1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned auction on the ground that the same was in violation of Rule 285-A, 285-D, 285-E and 285-J of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, read with section 284 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

5. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, who is auction-purchaser, it is stated that after munadi by beat and drums a date of auction was fixed on 13.3.1986. Land in dispute of the petitioner was auctioned in presence of Jwala Singh, gram pradhan and other villagers. Respondent No. 4 was the highest bidder for Rs. 16,000/-, out of which he deposited Rs. 4,000/- at the spot. A report was submitted by Naib Tehsildar on 9.6.1986, recommending for confirmation to SDO, Sikandara Rao, Aligarh. Since the petitioner neither deposited the amount sought to be recovered nor filed any objection against the aforesaid auction; though a notice was issued to the petitioner and served personally by the official respondents. It is stated that the notice was served on 30.4.1986. The petitioner instead filed an appeal before the Commissioner on 8.7.1986, which was barred by limitation and has rightly been rejected by the Commissioner. The SDO, Sikandra Rao, had already issued a sale certificate in favour of respondent No. 4 on 25th June, 1986.

7. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit, in reply to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, wherein the case in the writ petition has been reiterated. However, he has further said in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder-affidavit that even warrant of attachment was issued by a revenue clerk, and not by the Collector, as is evident from Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Therefore, even the attachment or sale proclamation was illegal.

8. There is one more fact in order to complete the narration of facts, that the balance amount of the auction-money was deposited by respondent No. 4 on 31.3.1986.

9. A short question up for consideration is whether the auction proceedings in respect to the land in question have been held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statute or not.

10. Section 279 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1950 Act’) lays down various processes following whereto recovery of an amount, recoverable as arrears of land revenue, can be made. Sub-sections 1(d), (e) and (f) of Section 279 provides that the amount can be recovered:

(d) by attachment of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due;

(e) by lease or sale of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due;

(f) by attachment and sale of other immovable property of the defaulter.

11. The procedure for attachment, lease and sale of holding, against which an arrears is due and other property of the defaulter is provided in Sections 284 and 286 of 1950 Act read with U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “1952 Rules”) and Rules 281 to 286 deals