Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tarun Agrawal for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4; Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Srivasvata for the contesting respondent No. 5; Sri Ved Mani Sharma for the respondent No. 12; and perused the record.

2. As the dispute in the present petition emanates from auction of a firm’s property in favour of the fifth respondent, the remaining respondents are only proforma respondents and therefore with the consent of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 5 as well as other respondents who are represented, this petition is being finally decided at the admission stage itself.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case, relevant for deciding this petition, are as follows:

On 21.4.1980, a property of M/s. Raghunandan Prasad Mohan Lal, a partnership firm, was subjected to an auction sale. The property sold was in Non-Z.A. Area, as a result, an objection was taken to the aforesaid auction under Section 173 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly. The said objection was registered as Objection No. 79 of 1980 and the same was rejected by order dated 9.12.1981 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly. Against the order passed by the Commissioner, a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by order dated 19.10.1985. The same is extracted herein below :

“Order

This purports to be a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 9.12.1981 passed by the learned Commissioner, Bareilly Division, in a proceeding for sale under Rule 285-I of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules.

I have heard arguments on behalf of the parties in the light of a ruling of the Hon’ble High Court, reported in 1984 R.D. page 299.

This revision has been filed under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Under this section, the Board can entertain a revision only against the order of subordinate Court. The rule of the Hon’ble High Court, cited above, clearly lays down that the order of the Commissioner passed in sale proceedings under the L.R. Act are orders of a revenue officer and not a revenue Court.

The present revision is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.”

4. In the meantime, it appears, Sahu Rameshwar Nath, who was a partner in the firm as also a receiver appointed over the property of the firm, had filed Writ-C No. 15470 of 1981 against the auction. It appears that the writ Court was informed by the then Additional Chief Standing Counsel that in respect of the same property, a suit is also pending and therefore the matter should not be examined in the writ jurisdiction.

5. On the aforesaid information, the writ Court, by its order dated 16.1.1997, dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

6. Against the order dated 16.1.1997 passed in Writ-C No. 15470 of 1981, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court. However, the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court.

7. Thereafter, a review application was filed before this Court which was registered as Review Application No. 17931 of 1997. The said review application was disposed of by a division bench of this Court by order dated 4.4.1997, which reads as follows :

“Against the auction proceeding numerous objections has been raised and the same have been disposed of by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the authority concerned rejecting the objections has become final against which no statutory remedy is provided.

However, Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the State, disputes this legal position and submits that in various decisions the rule in this regard has been interpreted and against the rejection of the objections a revision is (sic) and it is directed that