Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr.S.K.Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.V.C.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.S.N.Tangri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.8.2002, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra, whereby the objection raised by him against the auction sale, has been rejected as also the order dated 14.5.2004, rejecting the revision, passed by the Board of Revenue, by upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner.

The property of auction is a Cold Storage and Ice Factory runs in the name of Mahavar Cold Storage and Ice Factory being situate at Industrial Area Mathura.

The petitioner is a lease holder of the plot, over which the factory is situated, granted by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for adjudication of the present case may be stated, thus that the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (II), U.P. State Electricity Board (now named as U.P. Power Corporation), Mathura issued a citation of demand of Rs. 7,16,231/- on 26.10.1999.

The petitioner disputed the said demand as he found it highly exaggerated and inflated.

On 18.7.2001 the same authority issued another citation of demand of Rs. 9,47,669/-.

The Tehsildar, Mathura published an auction notice fixing the date of auction i.e. 8.3.2002 of the proposed site C-60 Industrial Area, Site-A, Mathura.

It is stated that earlier the auction was proposed on 15.2.2002, however, it was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mathura on 4.3.2002 and he fixed another date of auction on 8.3.2002. The date of auction was published by notice dated 5.3.2002 in Daily News Paper “Dainik Jagaran.”

It is further stated that the notice was issued in composite form as another property was also shown to be auctioned. Thus, no sale proclamation in ZA form-74 was issued. The auction was finalized in favour of opposite party No. 4 on his highest bid of Rs. 31,30,000/-.

It is stated that before auction no amount was deposited by the O.P.No.4, rather the Tehsildar, Mathura certified the deposition of 25% amount of bid i.e. Rs. 7,85,000/- by O.P. No. 4 after the date of auction and balance 75% amount of bid i.e. Rs. 23,45,000/- on 26.3.2002.

The petitioner had filed a regular suit being Regular Suit No. 288/1995 along with the application for Temporary Injunction. The Civil Court on 31.5.1997 issued a temporary injunction staying the recovery proceeding.

It is stated by the petitioner that in view of temporary injunction, the auction is wholly illegal. The petitioner had also filed objection against the auction before the SubDivisional Officer stating the aforesaid fact on 6.3.2002, which was ignored by the authority concerned.

It is stated that Section 341 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act) provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short C.P.C.) shall apply to the proceedings under this Act. Order 21, Rule 54 CPC provides that the order of attachment of immovable property shall require the judgment debtor to attend Court on specified date to take notice of the date to be fixed for settling the terms of the proclamation of sale, but no such notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to attend the Court. Moreover, the notice was served upon the authorized person.

It is further stated that Order 21, Rule 58 CPC provides that where any objection is made to the attachment of any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the objection and Order 21, Rule 59 provides that pending the objection the property shall not be sold. Order 21 Rule 66 provides that the proclamation of sale shall be drawn up, aft