The failure to file an objection under Rules 285-1 and 285-H of the UP ZA and LR Rules bars a person from raising the issue of irregularity in an auction sale in a writ petition.

M.P. Singh

1. The present petition is directed against an order of Additional Commissioner of Meerut Division Meerut dated 10-8-1988 whereby he has set aside the order of learned S.D.O. and has directed to confirm the auction sale dated 21-8-1986 and to deliver the possession of the land to Karan Singh (respondent no. 3).

2. The opposite party no. 3 has put in appearance. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. On the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

The brief facts are given below : The petitioner took a loan of Rs. 18000/- from the Union Bank of India and Rs. 20000/- from the Punjab National Bank on 7-8-1973 and 19-5-1971 respectively for purchasing a Tractor. The petitioner committed default in repayment of loan. Both the banks issued recovery certificate. In pursuance of that, the land belonging to the petitioner situated in village Tashipur Mustakam, Tashipur Ahatmal, Rajapur Ahatmal and Rajapur Mustakam were attached and ultimately put to auction on 21-8-86. The respondent no. 3 was the highest bidder.

3. On 25-8-1986 Naib Tehsildar recommended that the auction sale held on 21-8-1986 may not be approved and the auction notice be published again.

4. The S.D.O. by means of his order dated 4-9-1986 approved the said recommendation. Against this order, the respondent no. 3 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut which was allowed on 10-8-1988. The present writ petition is directed against this order.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass an order for confirming the sale. The auction sale was not in accordance with law. According to him, even if the petitioner failed to file any objection under Rules 285-1 and 285-H of UP ZA and LR Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules) will not debar the petitioner from raising this point in the writ petition. His contention further was that the S.D.O. himself has not accepted the sale dated 21-8-86 and has set aside the same after recommendation of Tehsildar, before expiry of 30 days. It was not open to the Addl. Commissioner to set aside the order of S.D.O. dated 4-9-86.

5. The main attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that there was material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale inasmuch as, it was held after the expiry of 30 days from the date, the proclamation was issued. According to him, there was complete breach of Rule 281 (2) (i) which vitiated the sale.

6. In order to consider the worth of the argument, we will have to look into the relevant rules. Rule .85-1 reads as under :-

"At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it ; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reasons of such irregularity or mistake."

There is no dispute that the sale took place on 21-8-86 and the son of the petitioner also participated in the said auction. It was conducted by Naib Tehsildar in accordance with law. In the absence of any objection, the deposit of one fourth of auction money by the highest bidder and the balance has also been accepted by the authorities.

7. Thus under Rule 285-1, the petitioner could have moved the application before the Commissioner for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale. He had an additional responsibility of satisfying the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reasons of irregularity of administration. The petitioner did not file any objection as contemplated under this rule. Not even an oral objection was raised at the time of auction.

8. This leads us to examine Rule