JUDGMENT S.C. Manchanda, J. - This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Kr. Mohan Swarup hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. The relief claimed is for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated the 10th July 1959 confirming the sale of 14 lots of land auctioned by the Tahsildar on the 22nd November 1958, which plots according to the State were auctioned before the receipt of a copy of the telegram from the Board of Revenue dated, the 20th November, 1958, staying the auction of the plots in dispute. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are some what confused as a counter affidavit was filed on the 19th January 1960 and again a supplementary counter affidavit was filed after a lapse of more than four years on the 8th July 1964, with the result that there were a wo rejoinders filed one on the 22nd of February 1960 and the other on the 7th of August 1964. The facts however on which there would appear to be no dispute are these. 953 Bighas of land belonging to the petitioner and his uncle Kunwar Bhagwandas Sahai were attached by an attachment order dated, the 3rd September 195 for the first time for Takabi (loan) agricultural Income-tax and the dues. Subsequently, this amount was increased to Rs. 83,976.56. Sour time in November 1958, the sale pro collimation was issued. The name the defaulter in the sale proclamation was given as that of the petitioner and his uncle and the sale w fixed for the 22nd November 195 Prior to that, however, on the 18t November 1958, the petitioner ha moved the Member of the Board Revenue for a stay of the auction sale fixed for the 22nd of Novena 1958. On the 20th November 19 a telegram was issued. 'by the Bo of Revenue to the Collector Bareilly staying the auction sale fixed for the 22nd November 1958. According to the Tehsildar who was conducting the auction sale no telegram was received by him from the Collector Bareilly or from the Board of Revenue. A copy thereof, however, was produced before him at 2 p.m. on the 22nd November 1958, by the petitioner. Before such copy was produced, the impugned 14 lots of land were already auctioned and 25% of the purchase money duly deposited by the action purchaser. A copy thereof, however, was produced before him at 2 p.m. on the 22nd November 1958, by the petitioner. Before such copy was produced, the impugned 14 lots of land were already auctioned and 25% of the purchase money duly deposited by the action purchaser. On the 23rd November 1958, an application was moved before the District Magistrate to set aside the sale on the ground that there was a stay order by the Board of Revenue. On the 26th February 1959, the stay order by the Board was vacated and again a stay order was reimposed on the 13th May 1959. On the 15th May 1959, the Collector Bareilly informed the Telisildar "The stay order passed by the Board of Revenue would operate as the sons Bhagwan Sahai and Mohan Swarup had agreed to pay Rs. 6000/- before June 1959 and they had further agreed to pay a stun of Rs.. 24,000/- by June 30, 1959. But, if in all, Rs. 30,000/- were, not deposited by June 30, 1959, in addition to Rs. 24961,/- which they claimed to have deposited already the Tehsildar will be free to take all steps regarding the sale of the attached properly on July 1, 1959 and onwards. While time had been allowed to the defaulter to pay part the dues in the above manner the property was directed to remain 'attached; for the balance amount the position will be reviewed only after the payments have been made as stated above." Significantly, the balance of 75% of the purchase money in respect of the auction purchase which took place on the 22nd November 1958, was not deposited by the auction purchasers till the 8th June 1959. This was prima facie in violation of the provisions of rule 285-E of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Rules 1952, hereinafter referred to as Rules. 3. Although the auction purchaser has been a party to these proceedings he has not appeared nor filed any affidavit to explain why the mandatory provisions under rule 285-E of the Rules were not or could not be complied with or how and why he had picked on the 8th June 1959, to make the mandatory deposit which he was required to make before the expiry of the 15th day from the date of the sale. 4. On the 10th July 1959, the Commissioner without any notice to the petitioner confirmed the sale. 4. On the 10th July 1959, the Commissioner without any notice to the petitioner confirmed the sale. On the 28th July 1959, the petitioner moved an application to the Commissioner pointing out that the sale could not have been confirmed. The Commissioner by communication to the Collector, Bareilly copy whereof was sent to Kr. Mohan Swarup summarily directed, "The application of Kr. Mohan Swarup dated the 28th July 1959, has been filed by me and the stay order granted by me is hereby vacated. You should now proceed with the necessary action." 5. The present writ petition was filed on the 8th October 1959. The main question which fall for consideration in this writ petition are:- (1) What is the effect of the stay order issued by the Board of Revenue but not communicated to the Tehsildar who was carrying out the auction sale on the right of the opposite party the State in respect of the outstanding Tagavi and Agricultural Income-tax and other dues ? (2) Whether the sale itself was a nullity and it could not have been confirmed by the Commissioner because of the noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of rule 285-E of the Rules? (3) Whether there was an adequate alternate remedy which would bar the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court? (4) And lastly, whether this petition could have been filed by Kr. Mohan Swarup alone without impleading his uncle ? 6. The fourth point may be disposed of first. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the the lots of land in dispute which were auctioned are his exclusive property and his uncle has no interest therein. The junior standing Counsel asked for time to file a counter affidavit. That, however is not necessary as prima facie, there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit and, in any event, the petitioner would render himself liable for the consequences if the affidavit is found to be false. 7. As regards the first question posed there is a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Parsotam Saran v. Brahmanand, 25 A.L.J. 530, where the conflict so far as this Court is concerned was set at rest. 7. As regards the first question posed there is a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Parsotam Saran v. Brahmanand, 25 A.L.J. 530, where the conflict so far as this Court is concerned was set at rest. It was there held that if it was found that there was no irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale and the order of stay was not known to anybody or to persons bidding at sale and such purchaser was a third party acting in good faith, such a sale would be a perfectly good sale which could not be declared void because it was held subsequent to a stay order passed by the High Court. Reliance was placed on this authority by the learned Junior Standing Counsel for the State. But this decision is not of much assistance to him as the State in the present case would be in the same position as the decree holder in the Full Bench case, where it was observed : "A clear and substantial distinction must be drawn between cases where the decree holder has made the purchase and where the purchaser is a third party acting in good faith. The decree holder can not shake off his character as such merely by reason of his auction purchase, and he is bound by all the orders passed in the case. A stay order will therefore operate against him and it may be that a purchase by a decree holder will be set aside on the same ground of the passing of the stay order." 8. The ratio of this case, in my judgement would equally apply to proceeding for recovery and sale which take place under the Z. A. & L. R. Rules. It is clear, therefore that when the auction purchaser has not come forward to contest these proceedings, it will hardly lie in the mouth of the decree holder, to urge that it is not bound by the stay order passed by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue is a part of the State Government and it would be idle for the latter to contend that it was not bound to respect and obey the stay order passed by the former. The Board of Revenue is a part of the State Government and it would be idle for the latter to contend that it was not bound to respect and obey the stay order passed by the former. It may have been a different matter if the auction purchaser, in these proceedings, had come forward and contended that lie was an auction purchaser in good faith and without knowledge of the stay order passed by the Board of Revenue. But that is not the case here. Therefore, so far as the State, Commissioner, Collector and the Tehsildar are concerned they were bound hand and foot by the stay order passed by the Board of Revenue. Even if that stay order was not duly communicated before the auction took place, the right to have the auction sale maintained is only that of the auction purchaser and of no one else. 9. That apart, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Manni Lal, Mohan Lal Shah v. Sardar Syed Ahmad, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 349, there cannot be much doubt that the impugned sale which took place on the 22nd November 1958 was a nullity inasmuch as there was non-payment of the balance of 75% of the price within 15 days of the sale as required by rule 285-E of the U. p. Zamindari. Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, which is in pari material with Order 21, rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court has laid down- "On the person being declared as a purchaser, such person not being a decree holder, the payment of the balance within 15 days of the sale are mandatory and upon non-compliance with these provisions there is no sale at all. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a stranger purchaser . without depositing 25/,, of the purchase money in the first instance and the balance within 15 days, when there is no sale within the contemplation of this rule there can be no question of material irregularity in conduct of the sale. Non-payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a nullity. without depositing 25/,, of the purchase money in the first instance and the balance within 15 days, when there is no sale within the contemplation of this rule there can be no question of material irregularity in conduct of the sale. Non-payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a nullity. The very fact that the Court is bound to sell the property (rules 84 and 86) "n the event of a default shows that lie previous proceedings for sale are completely wiped out as if they doest exist in the eye of law. 10. If the payment is not made with in the period of 15 days the Court has the discretion to forfeit the deposit and there the discretion ends but the obligation of the court to resell the property is imperative. A further consequence of non-payment is that the defaulting purchaser forfeits all the claim to the property." In the Vand Lal v. Mohd. Siddiquan, AIR 1957 Allahabad 558, it as held, "if a sale had been combined, such sale could be set aside not necessarily under Order 21, rule as that rule only applies to a valid sale. If there is no valid sale there can be no confirmation of an invalid sale. If the confirmation of Ian invalid sale has been made it will be an invalid confirmation. "Here an auction purchaser fails to deposit the full amount of purchase money payable by him on the 14th day from the sale of the property then under rule 84 the sale by which the auction purchaser purchased the property is automatically cancelled and he can have no interest in the property which was the subject of sale. But if there is no interest then acquired by the auction purchaser there is no question of confirmation of the sale. The sale can only be if there is no interest acquired by the auction purchaser." 11. In view of these authorities it is idle for the department to contend that there is an alternate remedy which ought to have been pursued by the petitioner under the provisions of the Z. A. & L. R. Rules or the Code of Civil Procedure, Order 21, rules 84, 85 and 86. According to the Supreme Court, such a sale where the auction purchaser has not deposited the balance of 75% within. According to the Supreme Court, such a sale where the auction purchaser has not deposited the balance of 75% within. 15 days of the sale, for any reason whatsoever, is non-existent in the eye of law. The sale is a complete nullity and it is nonest and as such the writ jurisdiction of this Court would be the appropriate forum for ventilating such a grievance. That apart, the realisation and recovery of tax having been stayed by the Board of Revenue the recovery, if any, made after the stay order would not be in accordance with law and would therefore contravene the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution, vide Banwari Lal v. Rajasthan State, A.I.R. 1953 Raj. 180. In any view of the matter, this would be a fit case for the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, particularly as the only relief to which the petitioner would be entitled to is a re-auction of the property in view of the mandatory provisions of rule 285-E of the Z. A. & L. R. Rules read with order 21, rule 85 of the G. P. C. and as such no in justice can be said to be done to the Department by acceding to this writ petition. 12. For the reasons given above the sale which took place on the 22nd November, and its confirmation by the order of the Commissioner is held to be a complete nullity and as such those orders and the orders of confirmation by the Commissioner dated the 10th of July 1959 and 11th of August 1959, are directed to be quashed, by the issue of a writ of Certiorari. 13. Accordingly the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.