The judgment highlighted the availability of alternative remedies and the need for the appellate court to decide on specific legal aspects related to the auction sales and loan recovery proceedings.

S.U. KHAN, J.

1. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, father of Petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 took some loan from the Bank of Baroda for purchasing Tractor. As the loan and the interest were not paid in time, hence proceedings for recovery of the same like arrears of land revenue were initiated. The agricultural land of the debtors was auctioned twice on 3.3.1984 and 13.2.1986. The necessity for the second auction arose as the first auction was set aside by the Commissioner on 1.10.1984 on objections filed under Rule 285-I of the Rules framed under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Z.A. Rules). The Commissioner set aside the same on the ground of illegality and irregularity. The order of the Commissioner setting aside the first sale dated 3.3.1984 is annexed as Annexure-II to the writ petition. It has been stated in the writ petition that after the first auction sale, the entire dues were paid to the Bank. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is photostat copy of a statement of account issued by the Bank of Baroda according to which no amount remained due and account was closed on 11.7.1984. Amounts of Rs. 71,000 and odd and Rs. 30,000 are shown to be deposited on 31.3.1984. Further amount of Rs. 4,000 appears to have been deposited on 2.4.1984 in the aforesaid statement of account. In the judgment of the Board of Revenue, it is mentioned that Bank issued the certificate on 24.11.1986 with regard to full payment (Annexure-3 to the writ petition contains date which is not legible). However, it has not been mentioned in the judgment of Board of Revenue as to what was the date of full payment according to the said certificate dated 24.11.1986. Earlier auction sale was made in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. In the second auction sale also, only these three persons participated and as per 'fard nilaam' copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition auction was finalised in favour of Radhey Shyam, Respondent No. 5 for Rs. 1,19,000 and purchaser was directed to make deposit in accordance with the rules. It appears that as required by the Rule no deposit was made on the date when auction was finalised. It further appears that the auction purchaser/ Respondent No. 5 made a statement that the amount deposited by him in pursuance of the earlier auction dated 3.3.1984 might be adjusted in lieu of the amount which he was required under the Rules to deposit in pursuance of the second auction dated 13.2.1986. Petitioners filed objections before the Commissioner under Rule 285-I of Z.A. Rules against second auction sale dated 13.2.1986. The Commissioner by his order dated 1.9.1986 dismissed the objections; copy of the said order is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The Commissioner held that:

"The law does not bar this amount of adjustment."

2. In the said order it is also mentioned that Rs. 17,000 and odd were deposited by purchaser on 27.2.1986. Against the order of the Commissioner Petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 16542 of 1986 which was dismissed on 25.9.1986 as not pressed. Thereafter, Petitioners filed revision before the Board of Revenue on 27.1.1987 against order of the Commissioner dated 1.9.1986. By the impugned order dated 22.10.1993 Annexure-11 to the writ petition, Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision.

3. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid orders of Commissioner and Board of Revenue respectively. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision on the ground that Petitioners could not point out any illegality or irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale that on the date of sale amounts had not been paid to the Bank and that writ petition filed by the Petitioners had been dismissed by the High Court on 25.9.1986.

4. It may further be mentioned that on 15.10.1986, Petitioners filed a regular suit before the civil court being Original Suit No. 412 of 1986 for permanent injunction challenging the second auction sal