Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—Heard Sri C.K. Jha for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Bhatnagar appearing for respondent No. 6-Bank of India, Civil Lines, Bareilly. The respondent No. 5 is represented by Sri H.A. Kumar. Inspite of service of notice upon respondent No. 7, no one has turned up either to file counter-affidavit or appeared for argument when the case is taken up for hearing.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 15.3.2002 and 26.11.1999 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively to this petition. Further a relief in the nature of mandamus is sought for commanding the respondents not to hand over the possession of the land to the auction purchaser-respondent No. 7 Pradeep Kumar son of Sri Krishna R/o Mohalla Pakka Katra Aonla, Bareilly.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner is agriculturist. The respondent No. 5 Wimco Limited is a company incorporated under the Indian Company Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of match boxes and match sticks. For the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid business the company has floated its scheme in the area amongst the farmers to grow poplar plants, which was assured to be purchased by the company. The Company has also assured the farmers that it will ensure that for plantation of poplar plants they will get loan from the Nationalised Banks with the help of the Company. In order to execute the said scheme the Company has entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 31.12.1989 whereby the petitioner has authorised the company to receive payment directly from the bank as a cost of the poplar plants which was to be supplied by Wimco Ltd. to the petitioner (agriculturist/farmer). Thereafter, it appears that Bank of India has advanced a loan of Rs. 72,600/- in the name of petitioner and price of poplar plants was directly paid to the Company by bank from the loan advanced to the petitioner. The loan was sanctioned by the bank to the petitioner on 20.3.1990 by an agreement entered into by the bank with the petitioner. The aforesaid agreement is on record as Annexure C.A.-2 to the counter-affidavit filed by the bank. The aforesaid loan advanced to the petitioner by the Bank as cash-credit-facility to the petitioner and was liable to be recovered by 31.12.1997.

4. The petitioner has stated that without waiting the period for re-payment of aforesaid loan, a recovery certificate has been issued by the bank in the year 1996 demanding a sum of Rs. 72,600/- as stipulated in the agreement for realising the amount of loan advanced to the petitioner alongwith interest thereon. It is further stated that the Wimco Ltd. did not purchase the poplar trees grown by the petitioner as earlier assured by the said company but bank has issued recovery certificate for realising of the loan advanced granted to the petitioner alongwith interest thereon. Thereafter a sale proclamation was issued by the Collector under Sections 284 and 286 on 24.4.1997 in Z.A. Form No. 74, stipulating that the sale of plot No. 593 area 1.818 Hectare of Khata No. 622 of village Manuna Tehsil Aonla, District Bareilly belonging to the petitioner shall be held on 26.5.1997 through a public auction. It is stated that the aforesaid sale proclamation was neither served upon the petitioner nor he was any way informed about the said proceeding of auction sale and said auction was held on aforesaid schedule date by Tehsildar for a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner has moved an application to the Collector, Bareilly and Additional District Magistrate, Finance under Rule 285-H of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules on 24.6.1997 that he is ready to pay entire amount of arrears plus five percent purchase money and costs of auction sale, which is on record as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. It is stated that the Collector, Bareilly has taken no action on the said application of the petitioner. Thereafter finding no alternative, the petitioner