Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr.S.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Mohd.Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 6, the learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.12.1988, passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad on the petitioner’s objection moved under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 filed against the auction sale dated 9.3.1987.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner established a Firm in the name of M/s. Vishal Farm Equipments Company at Katchehri Road, Bahraich. It had a cash credit account in Bank of Baroda, Bahraich. In order to secure the loan of cash credit, he also mortgaged his agricultural plot No. 663, admeasuring 2.15 acre, situated at village Sohrawa, Pargana, Tehsil and district Bahraich. Owing to dispute arisen out between the Firm and Bank, the Bank filed Civil Suit for recovery of money against the Firm before the Civil Court Bahraich, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 168 of 1986. Meanwhile the Bank issued a recovery certificate to the Collector to recover the loan as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner being defendant moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the civil suit against said recovery in which the Bank filed an objection stating therein that the Bank has withdrawn the recovery certificate, therefore, there is no occasion to entertain the application. Under the circumstances the Civil Court refrained it from issuing any temporary injunction.

3. Ultimately the business of the Firm was closed and the company also bound up. However, it appears that the Firm had committed default in payment of Sales Tax, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer, Bahraich also issued a recovery certificate to the Tehsil authorities to recover the amount of tax as arrears of land revenue, pursuant to which the Tehsil authorities issued citation to the petitioner and further published the sale proclamation in the local News Paper Lok Riti in its Daily issue of 8th of January, 1987, whereby the petitioner’s agricultural land was put for auction sale on 23rd of January, 1987. The petitioner claims the violation of Rules 282 and 283 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1952). He submits that in proclamation of sale neither any amount of annual demand nor estimated value of the property was shown, whereas it is mandatory. That being so the petitioner also preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing writ petition No. 1571 of 1987, but this Court did not entertain the writ petition on the ground that the civil suit in the matter was already pending, in which the petitioner could move an appropriate application.

4. However, the petitioner chose to move the objection under Section 285-1 of the Rules, 1952 before the Divisional Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of material illegality and mistake in publishing and conducting the sale. The petitioner also stated that on the land in question about 200 eucalyptus trees of three years old and 25 trees of Sheesham of 25 years old were standing, but those had not been evaluated. He also stated that the entire property of the petitioner was auctioned only for Rs. 27,000/-, whereas the minimum value of the auction property on the date of auction, had it been evaluated, would have been found not less than Rs. 1 lakh. However, the Divisional Commissioner rejected the petitioner’s objection, therefore, the petitioner instituted the instant writ petition before this Court.

5. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several legal questions before this Court to interfere in the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner as well as to quash the auction sale. On the point of proper evaluation of the land as well as declaration of estimated value of the property th