PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Demand Notice dated 27.08.2007 issued by the respondent no. 2 and the consequent recovery certificate, in pursuance thereof, dated 27.08.2007.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the Assistant Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parishad decided to auction the unusable buildings and the contents therein and in pursuance thereof an auction was held on 25.01.1991, wherein the petitioner also participated in the auction and was the highest bidder at Rs. 3 Lacs. The auction goods were the rubble of the buildings at Sadar Tehsil, Shahjahanpur.

3. The petitioner claims that subsequent to the auction, the goods to be sold were altered and as such the petitioner did not deposit the 1/4th of the auction which was to be deposited within a period of three days from the date of the auction. However, the petitioner did deposit the earnest money of Rs. 3,000/-, consequent thereupon he participated in the bid. The petitioner claims that he was never informed about the approval of his highest bid and no information stating that his bid has been accepted was ever communicated to the petitioner. It is stated that on 04.02.1991, the respondent no. 2, the Collector, Shahjahanpur, cancelled the auction dated 25.01.1991 and on the same date passed an order for re-auction. It is stated that on 05.02.1991, the respondent no. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner (served on the petitioner on 15.02.1991) informing that the auction dated 25.01.1991 has been cancelled and the earnest money of Rs.3,000/- has been forfeited. It is stated that the petitioner gave a reply to the said notice on 19.02.1991 and thereafter no action was taken and the petitioner thought that the matter stands closed.

4. It is stated that for the same things, which were put to auction on 15.02.1991 a second auction was done on 25.01.1991 and the highest bid received was Rs. 1,30,000/-. It is stated that a third auction was held on 07.03.1991 for the same goods and this time the highest bid of Rs. 1,41,000/- was received, which was accepted by the respondent authorities. It is stated that on 12.09.2005 i.e. after about 14 years, the respondent no. 3 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,59,000/-, the same being the amount of difference of the bid in the first auction and the third auction, it was also stated in the communication dated 12.09.2005 that an order in that respect had already been passed on 04.02.2991. The petitioner claims that he sent his reply to the notice dated 12.09.2005 on 26.09.2005 before the respondent no. 3 denying his liability to pay any amount as claimed and also stating that there was no such terms and conditions in the auction dated 25.01.1991. It was also agitated that the claim made against the petitioner is a time barred claim. It is stated that the said reply dated 26.09.2005 has never been decided, however on 27.08.2007, a demand notice was issued by the Prabhari Adhikari, Nazarat on behalf of respondent no. 2 calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,59,000/-. It was also stated that if the said amount is not deposited, the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

5. The petitioner states that he made an application for grant of all the documents relating to the auction proceedings from the first auction to the last auction, however the said documents have never been provided to the petitioner. The petitioner further states that in fact on 24.10.2007, the respondents responded by stating that none of the documents pertaining to the earlier auction were available and as such could not be supplied.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made three fold submissions; one that the auction dated 25.01.1991 was not honoured by the petitioner as the goods to be sold through the said auction were changed after the auction was over. Secondly it is argued that even otherwise