Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari, quashing the auction proceedings dated 13.9.2004, auctioning the petitioner’s valuable land measuring about 0.650 hectare for an amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- in favour of respondent No. 6.

2. Heard Sri Kamal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava alongwith Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The facts giving rise to this case are that, it appears, the petitioner was sanctioned loan for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by respondent No. 5, the State Bank of India, in February, 2000 under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna for running shop of general merchant. In paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was only paid Rs. 25,000/- and remaining Rs. 25,000/- was never given. Since the petitioner could not pay the loan in due time, it appears, the bank has issued a recovery certificate on 4.1.2003 for recovery of Rs. 69,729/- before respondent No. 2, the Collector, Mathura. In paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that without giving any information to the petitioner and without following the provisions of auction, i.e., without munadi and publication, the auction was held and a bid offered by respondent No. 6 for an amount of Rs. 1,08000/- was accepted. It is also stated that the valuation of the land is more than 5 lakhs and the Gram Pradhan has also written a letter for cancellation of the aforesaid auction proceeding on 31.9.2004.

4. After the aforesaid auction, the petitioner herein, it appears, has filed an application before the Collector, Mathura for depositing the amount of loan in easy instalments and the Collector thereon has directed the Naib Tehsildar to accept Rs. 25,000/- and for remaining amount, some time be granted. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 25,000/- with the bank on 11.10.2004.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed present writ petition on the ground that the entire proceeding is vitiated on account of non-observance of the procedure contained in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder for recovery of the Government dues as arrears of land revenue. In the said writ petition, on 10.12.2004, a Division Bench of this Court has passed an interim order for not confirming the auction sale. However, it appears, the said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.8.2005 and the then Tehsil authorities have confirmed the sale after dismissal of the writ petition in default on 5.10.2005.

6. However, subsequently, the writ petition was restored to its original number on 16.11.2005. On 4.4.2007, this Court has stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute and also passed an order that entire action taken by the respondents on account of the dismissal of the writ petition in default is illegal.

7. Two counter-affidavits and one supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed; one by the State and remaining two by respondent No. 6, in favour of whom auction was confirmed. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State sworn by one Sri Darshan Singh, Tehsildar, Sadar District Mathura, it is stated in paragraph No. 3(1) that there is no record on the file of the auction proceedings with respect to the publication of notice in daily newspapers. In paragraph No. 2 of the same, it is stated that the Naib Tehsildar, on 15.10.2004, has submitted a report stating that the highest bid is of Rs. 1,08,000/-, whereas the valuation of the land is 3,20,000/-, therefore, auction be not confirmed.

8. In paragraph No. 4, it is stated that after dismissal of the writ petition on 17.8.2005, a proceeding for confirmation of sale was initiated and after getting the reports, the sale was confirmed on 5.10.2005 because of absence of interim order and possession of the land was