Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—Heard Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing for private respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgement and order dated 26.4.2001 passed by Board of Revenue-opposite party No. 1 dismissing the revision of petitioners contained in Annexure-7 of the writ petition preferred against the judgement and order dated 25.7.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow-opposite party No. 2 dismissing the objection of petitioners under Rule 285(1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules and auction dated 9.3.1992, contained in Annexures-5 and 3 respectively to the writ petition by seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid orders.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner have taken loan amounting to Rs. 75,000/- for purchasing a Tractor in the year 1985 from New Bank of India, Hardoi-opposite party No. 4 and in lieu of loan advanced to them, they have mortgaged their Bhumidhari land situated in village Pat Kunwan, Pargana Sarah Dakshini, Tehsil and District Hardoi. The petitioner No. 1 had also taken a loan amounting to Rs. 25,000/- under self employment scheme from the opposite party No. 5. It is stated that on failure of repayment of loan amount in instalments the bank issued recovery certificate. In pursuant thereto the Tehsil Authorities proceeded to recover the amount by coercive method and auctioned the Tractor of the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 64,500/- on 28.8.1990. Thereafter Tehsil Authorities further proceeded to auction the land of petitioners and fixed some dates for the auction but no publicity as contemplated under Rules framed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was done, therefore, no body appeared for bidding the property sought to be auctioned.

4. It is stated in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition that on 29.2.1992 the petitioner No. 2 received a notice in ZA Form 74 from Collection Amin informing him that the land belonging to the petitioners will be auctioned on 9.3.1992 for recovery of Rs. 83,743=70 p.. On receipt of the information a sum of Rs. 13,200/- were paid by the petitioners on 8.3.1992. The demand receipt of which is also on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition. Thereupon the assurance was given by the Tehsil Authorities that no auction will take place in near future and petitioners were also advised to deposit the balance amount as early as possible. Inspite of assurance given to the petitioners on 9.3.1992 i.e. next day, petitioners land measuring 4.910 acre = 7 Bigha and 19 Biswa was auctioned for Rs. 82,000/- in favour of Babu Singh father of opposite parties No. 6 to 8.

5. In para-8 of the writ petition, it is stated that whole auction proceeding was a fake and farce exercise on the part of respondents which is evident by the receipt regarding Beat of Drum, contained in Annexure-3 of the writ petition, allegedly effected on 26.2.1992 for the proposed auction sale. A perusal of said receipt shows that the Beat of Drum was done in Pura Bahadur regarding the auction of land of Bhanu Pratap Singh-petitioner No. 1, whereas the land in question is situated in village Pat Kunwan which is at a distance of about 4 K.M. from the Pura Bahadur. There was no sense of beating the drum in Para Bahadur. According to Rules regarding auction proceeding, it should have been done in village Pat Kunwan where the land in dispute were situated. It is also stated that said receipt of Kurk Amin dated 26.2.1992 does not disclose the description of land and time for auction sale. The detail particulars of witnesses who have signed the receipt has also not been given so as to fix their identity. Thus, the entire auction proceeding was a farce exercise undetaken by the Tehsil authorities to grab the land of petitioners. The auction sale was also held for very nominal amount of Rs. 82,000/- whereas the price of land is of several