The court emphasized the importance of compliance with auction rules and proper service of notices in auction proceedings, and the requirement to avoid material prejudice to the parties involved.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.: -

Heard Sri Rakesh Pathak for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Jaisawal and Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Commissioner dated 08.04.2002 setting aside the auction sale dated 05.11.2001 as confirmed on 11.12.2001 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 30.01.2006, dismissing the revision of the petitioners.

3. It appears that Ram Naresh and Gajodhar (now represented by respondents-5 and 6) took loan from Punjab & Sind Bank (respondent-7) for purchasing the tractor for agricultural purposes. They committed default in payment of the installments of the loan therefore the recovery proceedings has been initiated, in which citations were issued. Ram Naresh filed Misc. Single No. 53 of 2001, before this Court against recovery proceeding, which was disposed of by order dated 11.01.2001 and he was permitted to deposit the loan amount in three equal quarterly installments. However, Ram Naresh again committed default and not complied with the order dated 11.01.2001, then the Tehsildar has decided to proceed, under Section 284 and 286 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 to realize the loan amount by sale of the mortgaged as well as other properties of the defaulters. In pursuance thereof the notices in ZA Form 74 were issued to respondent-5 and Gajodhar and 05.11.2001 was fixed for auction of immovable properties. On 05.11.2001 the auction was held and the highest bid of the petitioners was accepted and auction sale was confirmed on 11.12.2001, by Sub-Divisional Officer.

4. Ram Naresh and Smt. Ganga Dei, (respondents-5 and 6) filed an application (registered as Misc. Case No. 57 of 2001) under Rule 285 I of UP Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, for setting aside the auction sale dated 5.11.2001 as confirmed on 11.12.2001. This application was filed on 13.12.2001, in which it has been stated that after issue of citation, they deposited Rs. 1,10,700/- on 09.09.2000. But their tractor was attached on 11.09.2000. In compliance of the order of High Court dated 11.01.2001, they deposited Rs. 25,000/- within two weeks of the order as directed but they could not deposit other installments in time. No notice of auction of immovable properties was given to them. Naib Tahsildar informed them about the auction on 19.11.2001. Although Gajodhar was dead but the notices in Z.A. Form 74 is alleged to have been served upon him. Neither the notices have been served upon the tenure holders nor the auction was conducted in proper manner and provisions of Rules 281, 282, 283 and 285 of the Rules were not complied with. The application was contested by the District Government Counsel who has stated that the auction was conducted in accordance with law.

5. The application was heard by Additional Commissioner (respondent-2) who by the impugned order dated 08.04.2002 found that the immovable property of respondents-5 and 6 has been auctioned at a very low rate. No notice has been issued to the defaulters before the auction as such the provisions of Rules 281, 282, 283 and 285 were not complied with. Although, it is alleged that notices have been personally served but Gajodhar was dead and there is nothing on record to show that notice was personally served upon Gajodhar. Respondents-5 and 6 have produced a bank draft of Rs. 1.50 lakh which shows that they were ready to deposit the dues. In such circumstances, it was found that the auction was held in irregular manner and accordingly the auction sale as well as the confirmation were set aside.

6. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 126/2001-02) against the aforesaid order before Board of Revenue, U.P. Board of Revenue heard the revision and by order dated 30.01.2006 held that at the time of issue of recovery certificate one of the defaulter was dead and no notice was served upon the heir of dead defaulter, accordingly, the procedure as prescribed under Z.A. Rules for auction sale has not been followed. It has been