JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ajay Pratap Singh Vatsa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. K. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-Opposite parties.

2. No one appears on behalf of opposite parties no.6 to 11.

3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the auction proceeding of the assets of the company held on 13.06.1992 as well as sale confirmation order dated 17.07.1992 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad and also the order of Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 23.03.1993 by which an objection against the auction sale dated 13.06.1992 filed under Rule 285-I of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1952') was rejected and also the order of Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 06.11.1995 by which the revision of the petitioner against the order of Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut was rejected.

4. Factual matrix of the case is as follows:-

5. The petitioner-company is a registered company engaged in the production of transformer, bulb and other electrical goods and because of labour unrest in the factory, production in the company was put in halt and company suffered huge loss. Therefore the company could not clear outstanding towards sales tax, electricity dues and dues of Small Scale Industries Corporation.

6. On failing to clear the outstanding of electricity dues as well as Small Scale Industry Corporation, a recovery certificate was issued by the Collector, Ghaziabad of the amount of Rs.1,39,663.58/- to recover the electricity dues as well as the dues of Small Scale Industry. Thereafter in pursuance of the recovery citation issued by the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad property of the petitioner-company was attached and subsequently same was auctioned on 13.06.1992 which was subsequently confirmed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 17.07.1992 along with delay condonation application. Against the aforesaid auction proceeding, the petitioner-company has filed an objection dated 19.08.1992 under Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952 to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and violation of statutory provisions but the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut rejected the objection of the petitioner by the order dated 23.03.1993 on the ground that objection dated 19.08.1992 filed by the petitioner is time barred because as per rule 285-I of the Rule 1952 it could be filed within 30 days from the date of sale.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.1993 of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, the petitioner preferred Revision No.15-92-93, Zenith Electricals Private Limited vs. State of U.P and others before the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow.

8. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the objection of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that objection of the petitioner is time barred or the same was filed after 30 days of sale and delay condonation application of the petitioner was not considered. It is further submitted that if there is no bar for condoning the delay then the Limitation Act applies and delay can be condoned if the application is filed along with affidavit giving sufficient explanation of filing the delay.

9. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Board of Revenue is absolutely cryptic in nature and no reasoning was given. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire auction proceeding deserves to be set aside being conducted in violation of Rule 283A, Rule 285-A and Rule 285-J of the Rules, 1952.

10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no provision for condoning the delay in Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952, therefore Limitation Act does not apply. It was further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that auction proceedings was conducted as per the procedure prescribed in the Rules, 1952 therefore the present petition deserves to be dismi