JUDGMENT B.R. Vohra, M. - This is a revision application under section 219, L.R. Act filed on behalf of M/s Deepak Cold Storage, Varanasi against order of the Commissioner, Varanasi dated November 11, 1977 dismissing the firms application for setting aside the sale of their immovable property at an auction held on August 25, 1977. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated, are follows. 3. The U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur had in the year 1968 advanced a loan of Rs. 1, 50,000/- to M/s Deepak Cold Storage, a registered Partnership firm with headquarters at Varanasi. The conditions on which this loan was sanctioned are contained in the memo dated November 16, 1967 which is on record. As per condition No. 5 the loan was to be disbursed by the Corporation in the ratio of 2.5 to 1.5, that is for every 4 rupees invested Rs. 2.5 will be from Company's own resource and Rs. 1.5 given by the U.P.F.C. by way of loan. The total prosperity thus constructed including the land on which the Cold storage was to be put up was estimated in the agreement to be good for a security of Rs. 4,15,000/-. The loan was repayable in ten equal annual instalments. In case of default, the arrears of loan were recoverable as arrears of land revenue. When therefore, a default in repayment occurred, the U.P.F.C. sent, in August 1974, a recovery certificate to Collector, Varanasi requesting him to recover form Deepak Cold Storage a Sum of Rs. 1,45,146.25p. due from the latter by way of principal outstanding (Rs. 1,37,065 p), interest upto July 31, 1974 (Rs. 876. 29 p) and expenses (Rs. 204.86)., The recovery was to be made as arrears of land revenue under the provision of section 3 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. 4. In pursuance of the above mentioned recovery certificate, movable property of the firm was attached on August 28, 1975 and its cost was estimated to be Rs. 70, 145/- proclamation was issued and sale fixed for September 25, 1975. No bidder turn up on that date. Fresh proclamation was issued for July 15, 1976 but under order of the District Revenue Officer sale was stayed. Another proclamation was issued for September 15, 1976 but this auction could not be held because of some irregularities discovered. 70, 145/- proclamation was issued and sale fixed for September 25, 1975. No bidder turn up on that date. Fresh proclamation was issued for July 15, 1976 but under order of the District Revenue Officer sale was stayed. Another proclamation was issued for September 15, 1976 but this auction could not be held because of some irregularities discovered. At this stage finding that sale of the movable property was not likely to fetch a sufficient amount to satisfy U.P. F.C.'s demand, immovable property of the firm was attached on October 25, 1976 and proclamation issued for sale thereof for December 7, 1976. But no bidders turned up on this dated either. Next date fixed for auction was January 31, 1977 but once again there were no bidders. August 25, 1977 was then fixed for the purpose on which date two brother, Viz., Triloki Nath and Ramjit Prasad, both sons of Lal Ji, r/o Naubatpur, tahsil Chandauli, District Varanasi turned up to bid in the action. The auction was closed when Triloki Nath Offered a bid of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The highest bidder however, instead of depositing 25% of the amount bid in cash, tendered a cheque drawn on Union Bank for Rs. 40,000/- accompanied by the request that he may be permitted to deposit Rs. 40,000/- in cash the following day. He made this request on the ground that Banks had closed for the day and it was not possible for him to take out the required cash that day. The Sale Officer kept the cheque and allowed Triloki Nath time to make cash deposit till the following day. On the day following an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited in cash. 5. An application was filed on behalf of Deepak Cold Storage under section 173, L.R. Act read with order 21, rule 84, Civil Procedure Code in the court of Commissioner, Varanasi on August 31, 1977 in which it was prayed that the auction sale held on August 25, 1977 be set aside alleging numerous irregularities and illegalities. The learned Commissioner, Varanasi dismissed this application by his order dated November 28, 1977. It is against this order that the present revision before the Board has been filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 7. The learned Commissioner, Varanasi dismissed this application by his order dated November 28, 1977. It is against this order that the present revision before the Board has been filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionist-firm at the very outset challenged the validity of the sale. He contends that all these proceedings are ab inition void since the Cold Storage was situated within the limits of a town Area where provision of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and Rules made thereunder do not apply. He, however, withdrew his objection when he was confronted by the learned D.G.C.(R.) with the Board's decision dated July 23, 1977 in revision 23, 1977 in revision No. 174/LR/73-74 Dehradun, Krishana Devi v. U.P. State in which it was held that proceedings for sale of immovable property located in Urban areas to which the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act does not apply can also be taken under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and Rules made thereunder. The learned counsel then urged that sale was all the same a nullity as the requirement of section 285-D, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules was not complied with inasmuch as no cash 25% of the amount of the bid was made with the Sale Officer immediately after the Sale was concluded. He also argued that the Sale Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in permitting the action purchaser to make the cash deposit the following day. His acceptance of a cheque for an equivalent amount which could be no more than a conditional payment was no payment as contemplated in rule 285-D. In support he cited A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 349 and A.I.R. 1969 Assam 10. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionist firm has also assailed the sale on grounds of numerous material irregularities committed in the issue of proclamation and conduct of the sale proceedings. No land revenue was mentioned in the sale proclamation nor was the value of the property put up for sale indicated therein. All that has been mentioned in the proclamation was the amount for which recovery certificate has been received from U.P.F.C. But this figure was also wrong as in the recovery certificate interest only upto July 31, 1974 had been taken into account whereas the proclamation was issued in July 1977. All that has been mentioned in the proclamation was the amount for which recovery certificate has been received from U.P.F.C. But this figure was also wrong as in the recovery certificate interest only upto July 31, 1974 had been taken into account whereas the proclamation was issued in July 1977. But this time the amount due form the revisionist firm had gone up to more than Rs. 1.3 lacs taking into account interest at 7% per annum for 3 years after July 31, 1974. Then there was another amount of Rs. 31, 389. P. which was recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the revisionist firm on account of Electricity dues to which reference has been made by the Sale Officer (S.D.O., Chanduali East) in his report to the Collector dated August 30, 1977. Together with some other statutory charges the total amount recoverable from the sale of the Cold Storage, according to the Sale Officer's report would be of the order of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The highest bid received at the auction on August 25, 1977 was only Rs. 1,60,000/- which is just a few hundred rupees more than the amount mentioned in the proclamation plus 10% Collector charge. This would suggest that if the total amount to be recovered from the Sale of the Cold Storage were to be mentioned in the proclamation there was every possibility of the bid reaching at least the level of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The learned counsel further argued that in fact the property put up for sale was worth much more. The property put on sale alongwith a bit of land adjoining was valued by a registered valuer of the Ministry of Finance Government of India, Shri N.G. Kindayajekar, in August 1976. According to his estimate (after excluding the value of the land not included in the property put on Sale) the property was worth around Rs. 8 lakhs. (A copy of this Valuation report has been taken on file). According to U.P.F.C.'s own estimate the property was good for a security of Rs. 4, 15 lacs as stated in their letter dated November 16, 1967 (conveying the Corporation's agreement to sanction the loan) addressed to the revisionist firm. The Sale Officer's own estimate, given in his report dated August 30, 1977 was that the property was worth about Rs. 4 lacs. 4, 15 lacs as stated in their letter dated November 16, 1967 (conveying the Corporation's agreement to sanction the loan) addressed to the revisionist firm. The Sale Officer's own estimate, given in his report dated August 30, 1977 was that the property was worth about Rs. 4 lacs. Even if this value, though low, had been mentioned in the proclamation, there was no reason why the sale officer should have closed the auction at the stage he did for the bid was so ridiculously low. The bid accepted was very low even considering the total demand recoverable as arrears of land revenue by the sale of the Cold Storage which was in the knowledge of the Sale Officer though not mentioned in the proclamation. The sale must, argued the learned counsel for revisionist, be set aside for if the sale is confirmed the revisionist would sustain a substantial injury. He further argued that the learned Commissioner, while conceding that there were certain omissions in the proclamation, had dismissed the objection-raised before him by the revisionist holding that his interest had not been materially affected. This is a patently a perverse finding. 9. The learned counsel for the revisionist also assailed the sale proceedings on the ground that the description given in the sale proclamation of the property did not sufficiently describe the same. Anyone who was not familiar with the exact location of the property would consider the same to be situated in some rural area whereas the fact is that this Cold Storage is situated is the town of Chandauli not far from the Grand Trunk Road and quite close to the railway station. In fact even the learned Commissioner thought that the property was located in some out of the way place. Collector was expected to mention such other particulars about the property in the proclamation as he may think necessary and he ought to have considered mentioning the excellent location of the property as necessary in order to attract the right type of customers. His not doing so is a material irregularity that has caused injury to his interest. 10. Collector was expected to mention such other particulars about the property in the proclamation as he may think necessary and he ought to have considered mentioning the excellent location of the property as necessary in order to attract the right type of customers. His not doing so is a material irregularity that has caused injury to his interest. 10. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also assailed the conduct of the sale itself on the grounds that on the appointed dated, e.g., August 25, 1977, only two bidders had turned up and they were both real brothers, Since no fair bidding could possibly be expected in the circumstances, the Sale Officer should have adjourned the sale. 11. The learned counsel for the action purchaser has challenged the maintainability of the revision application filed before the Board under Section 219, U.P. L.R. Act. It was his contention that auction proceedings taken for recovery of sums as arrears of land revenue are not judicial proceedings in terms of para 911 of the Revenue Manual and as such a reference against orders passed in such proceedings would lie only to the State Government. He also contented that since the sale proceedings were taken according to the provision of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, the Land Revenue Act has no applicability and therefore, no revision would lie under section 219 of this Act. He further contended that Commissioner's impugned order had become final since in pursuance thereof. Collector had confirmed the sale by his order dated December 5, 1977, and since there was no revision filed against the Collector's order which has already become final cannot be entertained. 12. With regard to the alleged irregularities or shortcomings in the publishing and conduct of the sale proceedings pointed out by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it was argued that these all relate to points of fact, which have been duly considered by the learned Commissioner in his impugned order and these findings cannot therefore, be questioned in revision. The sale proclamation was in the form prescribed by Rule 282 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules, viz, Z.A. Form-74. The sale proclamation was in the form prescribed by Rule 282 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules, viz, Z.A. Form-74. No doubt under rule 283 of these Rules the estimated value of the property calculated in accordance with the Rule in Chapter 15 of the Revenue Manual, as also the amount of the annual demand, if any, is required to be mentioned in the proclamation, just because these were not mentioned in the proclamation the sale proceedings would not stand vitiated unless substantial injury was caused to the revisionist. But on account of these omissions the revisionist could not be said to have sustained any substantial injury, the view also held by the learned Commissioner. 13. With regard to the point that the 25% deposit required to be made by the successful bidder under rule 285(D) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules was not made immediately on the conclusion of the sale, the learned counsel argued that the facts are otherwise. A cheque drawn on Union Bank of India for an amount of equivalent to 25% of his bid, e.g., Rs. 40,000/- was handed over to the Sale Officer immediately upon the conclusion of the Sale. The cheque was accepted and, therefore, the provisions of the law had been satisfied. In any case Rule 285(D) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules only provides that the purchaser shall deposit immediately 25% of the amount of his bid and the earliest this money could be deposited was the day following the sale as by the time the sale was concluded banks had closed and no money could be withdrawn that day. The Sale Officer had, in fact, permitted the auction purchaser to make the deposit in cash the following day and since cash was deposited as per direction of the Sale Officer there has been no contravention of Rule 285(D). On the point whether payment by cheque is sufficient and valid payment he argued that it was so and he cited A.I.R. 1966 Mad. 435 in support. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Allahabad Bank support all the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the revisionist. He further contended that Allahabad Bank had also advanced a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the revisionist firm and the Bank held a second charge on the Cold Storage. 435 in support. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Allahabad Bank support all the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the revisionist. He further contended that Allahabad Bank had also advanced a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the revisionist firm and the Bank held a second charge on the Cold Storage. He urged that in considering the matter it must be borne in mind that the total amount outstanding against the revisionist was not Rs. 1,45,146.25P, as mentioned in the recovery certificate sent by the U.P.F.C. but to this amount should have been added the amount of loan taken from his Bank and interest thereon as also other Government dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue. If this was done the total amount recoverable as arrears of land revenue. If this was done the total amount recoverable as arrears of revenue would have been well above Rs. 3,00,000/-. In this view of the matter the highest bid at which the auction was closed by the Sale officer was altogether inadequate and the omission has not only caused substantial injury to the revisionist but also to Allahabad Bank, who hold a second charge on the property. 15. The learned D.G.C.(R.) appearing on behalf of the State as also of the U.P.F.C. whilst conceding that the revision application before the Board was validly made, argued that the impugned order of the Commissioner need not be interfered with as none of the irregularities pointed out in the proclamation and the conduct of the sale were such as could be said to have caused substantial injury to the interest of the revisionist. There have been, he urged, numerous attempts to sell the property in question and the fact that on earlier occasions there were no bidders would suggest that not many people were interested in buying this property. In the circumstances, the bid offered should be considered as fair, at any rate inadequacy of a bid is no ground for setting aside an auction sale for it cannot be held to be a material irregularity resulting in injury to the revisionist. In support he cited A.I.R. 1949 Alld. In the circumstances, the bid offered should be considered as fair, at any rate inadequacy of a bid is no ground for setting aside an auction sale for it cannot be held to be a material irregularity resulting in injury to the revisionist. In support he cited A.I.R. 1949 Alld. 528, in which it was held that :- "An action has thus to be established between the inadequacy of the price and the material irregularity in order to set aside an auction mere proof of material irregularity such as the one under rule 69 and inadequacy of price realised in such a sale. In other words, injury is not sufficient. What has to be established is that there was not only inadequacy of the price but that inadequacy was caused by a reason of the material irregularity or the fraud." 16. Let me first deal with the legal points raised by the counsel for the contending parties. 17. The learned counsel for the auction purchaser has contended that no revision under section 219, L.R. Act lies to the Board as auction proceedings taken for recovery of sums as arrears of land revenue are not judicial proceedings in terms of para 911 of Revenue Manual and that a revision against such orders lies only to the State Government. This argument cannot be accepted. No doubt under para 911 of Revenue Manual, as it originally stood, revision against proceedings taken for recovery of sums as arrears of land revenue lay only with the Government. However, vide Government notification No. 236/3/69/II-862 Gazette dated December 3, 1979 published at page 5159 of the U.P. Gazette dated December 20, 1969, this para was amended and such proceedings were declared to be judicial proceedings. The question whether revision in such matters lay before the Board under Section 219, L.R. Act or not was also agitated before the Board in Chabbi Nath v. U.P. State. It was held by the Board that after the amendment of para 911 of Revenue Manual, 1969 a revision did lie before the Board of Revenue under section 219, L.R. Act (1975 R.D. 318). Nothing has been said that would suggest that this view does not hold good as of date. 18. It was held by the Board that after the amendment of para 911 of Revenue Manual, 1969 a revision did lie before the Board of Revenue under section 219, L.R. Act (1975 R.D. 318). Nothing has been said that would suggest that this view does not hold good as of date. 18. Similarly there is no force in the contention that since proceedings taken in the case were under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, no revision would lie under Section 219 of the L.R. Act. Section 293 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act provides that provisions of chapter X of the U.P.L.R. Act (as amended by the former Act) shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, apply to proceedings taken under chapter X thereof i.e. chapter X of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Section 333, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act vests in the Board revisional powers over subordinate courts. There is no conflict between the powers vested in the Board under this section and the power of the Board under section 219 of L.R. Act. The entire procedure for recovery of sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue is provided in Chapter X of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and therefore chapter X of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and therefore Chapter X of he U.P.L.R. Act is applicable and a revision under section 219, U.P. L.R. Act would lie. I find support for this view in the bench decision of the Allahabad High Court published in 1969 R.D. 28. 19. There is no force either in the contention that no revision against Commissioner's impugned order lies as Collector had since acted upon Commissioner's order and confirmed the sale by his order dated December 5, 1977, Collector's order dated December 5, 1977 is only in the nature of a follow up action nan its fate will naturally depend upon the fate of the Commissioner's order under revision. The revision application in this case has been filed within time and I hold that it is maintainable. 20. The next point that requires looking into is whether provision of rule 285-D, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules regarding immediate deposit by the person declared to be a purchaser of 25 per cent of the amount of the bid has been satisfied in this case. The sale took place on August 25, 1977. 20. The next point that requires looking into is whether provision of rule 285-D, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules regarding immediate deposit by the person declared to be a purchaser of 25 per cent of the amount of the bid has been satisfied in this case. The sale took place on August 25, 1977. The auction purchaser tendered a cheque for Rs. 40,000/- praying at the same time that if this money was required to be deposited in cash he may be allowed time as banks had closed for the day. The Sale Officer permitted time for making deposit in cash till August 26, 1977, i.e. the day following but passed no orders about the cheque. In this connection it is worth nothing that on the application submitted by the auction purchaser the representative of the U.P.F.C. who was present at the time of the auction had endorsed the following:- "If party pays Rs. 40,000/- in cash by tomorrow then the auction may be treated as valid otherwise cancelled." S.D.M. in his order on this application had directed the auction purchaser to deposit rash on the day following. It would thus appear that the Sale Officer did not accept the cheque as a valid deposit. It has been contended on behalf of the auction purchaser that payment was made according to the provisions of rule 285-D. This contention, however, cannot be accepted. Payment by cheque is a conditional payment and becomes absolute only when the cheque has been cashed. In other words the possibility of a cheque being dishonoured on account of any number of deficiencies cannot be ruled out. The learned Commissioner accepts such a possibility but proceeded to justify payment by cheque as valid in the peculiar circumstances of the case, that the Sale was not held in the vicinity of a town or bank, that the normal banking hours are only upto 3 P.M. whereas the sale proceedings in the instant case started only after 2.00 P.M. that no party present at the time of sale had objected to the deposit being made in cheque. But these arguments cannot influence what is the legal position, namely that payment by cheque amount only to a conditional payment. There is also no basis for the Commissioner's observation that sale was not held in the vicinity of a town or a Bank. But these arguments cannot influence what is the legal position, namely that payment by cheque amount only to a conditional payment. There is also no basis for the Commissioner's observation that sale was not held in the vicinity of a town or a Bank. Chandauli where auction was held, is admittedly a town and it is difficult to believe that in this town, which is also the Tahsil Headquarters there is no bank. The ruling cited by the learned for the auction purchaser viz, 1966 Mad. 435 does not help his argument. The circumstances of that case were different. In that case auction was entrusted by the court to a firm of auctioneers of Madras. The auctioneers had told the intending purchasers that they would receive a part of the deposit in cash and the balance in cheque provided they were satisfied about the solvency of the bidder. This facility was allowed in view of the fact that the bid was likely to run into several lacs and bidders may have difficulty and may feel it risky to bring a huge amount, viz a lac or two the auction place. The highest bidder in that case had deposited Rs. 5,000/- in cash and for the balance passed a cheque for Rs. 1,70,000/-. This was 25% of highest bid made. This cheque was accepted as a valid payment only after the auction petitioners had satisfied themselves about the bidder's solvency. In the instant case there was no deposit whatsoever in cash and there is nothing on record to suggest that the Sale Officer had either accepted the cheque or satisfied himself about the Solvency of the bidder. The other case cited by the learned counsel for the auction purchaser (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1679) also does not help the auction purchaser. In the instant case there was no deposit whatsoever in cash and there is nothing on record to suggest that the Sale Officer had either accepted the cheque or satisfied himself about the Solvency of the bidder. The other case cited by the learned counsel for the auction purchaser (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1679) also does not help the auction purchaser. I quote a relevant portion form this ruling: "Thus though the cheque endorsed by the appellants in favour of the respondents was only a conditional payment of the amount for which the cheque was drawn the respondents by accepting the demand draft drawn by the Tripura Modern Bank, Sibsegar on its Calcutta Brach must be deemed to have accepted that draft as a legal tender or as absolute payment of the amount payable under the cheque endorsed in their favour by the appellant." It is clear that the payment by cheque in this case was treated as a conditional payment till such time in lieu therefore a bank draft was issued by the Bank on which the cheque was drawn and received by the creditor. 21. Rule 285-D provides that in default of 25% deposit the property put on sale shall forthwith be again put and sold and such person shall be liable for the expenses attending the first sale and any deficiency of price which may occur on the resale. When the deposit made is conditional as in this case and the cheque bounces on presentation the requirements that the property should be put up again for sale forthwith cannot be complied with. In my view the legal provision is clear that a payment of 25% of the deposit must be made immediately after the Sale Officer concludes the sale and declares one of the bidders to be the auction purchaser. The contention that it is no where provided that deposit be made in cash is no doubt valid, but it is obvious also that no 'conditional payment' can be accepted as deposit and payment by cheque is only a conditional payment. 22. The order passed by the sale officer permitting the auction purchaser to make the deposit in cash the following morning is no order in the eye of law. This was also the view held in A.I.R. 1969 Assam and Naga Land 10. 22. The order passed by the sale officer permitting the auction purchaser to make the deposit in cash the following morning is no order in the eye of law. This was also the view held in A.I.R. 1969 Assam and Naga Land 10. In that case the estate was ordered to be sold by auction under order 21, Rule 84, Civil Procedure Code which is analogous to Rule 285-D, U.P.Z.A.and L.R. Rules. The 25% deposit was not made immediately after the conclusion of the sale as it was as Saturday and Banks were closed and thereafter the court remained closed for some more time. It was held in that case:- "The order dated September 30, 1967 allowing time to pay the deposit till November 6, 1967 is also illegal. The court has no jurisdiction to extent the time for paying the deposit in question to the officer conducting the Sale." 23. In fact when no immediate deposit is made as required by Rule 285-D the sale becomes a nullity and there is a no sale at all. In examining the validity of a sale conducted in terms of order 21, Rules 84 and 85, Civil Procedure Code which are analogous to rules 185-D and 185-E of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in Mani Lal Mohan Lal v. Sayed Ahmad reported A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 349, held as follows: "Having examined the language of the relevant rules and the judicial decisions bearing upon the subject we are of opinion that the provisions of the rule requiring the deposit of 25% of the purchase money immediately, on the person being declared as a purchaser and 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 purchaser without deposing 25% of the purchase money in the first instance and the balance with 15 days. When there is no sale within the contemplation of these rules there can be no question of material irregularity in the conduct of the Sale. Non-payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceeding as a complete nullity. When there is no sale within the contemplation of these rules there can be no question of material irregularity in the conduct of the Sale. Non-payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceeding as a complete nullity. The very fact that the court is bound to re-sell property in the event of a default shows that the previous proceedings for sale are completely wiped out as if they do not exist in the eye of law. We, hold therefore, that in the circumstances of the present case there was no sale and the purchaser acquired no rights at all." 24. The rule requiring the deposit of 25% of the purchase money immediately on the person being declared as a purchaser is thus mandatory and when no such deposit is made the Sale proceedings are rendered a complete nullity. In the instant case as already discussed there was no immediate deposit of the 25% of the amount bid and as such the sale was no sale in the eye of law and therefore a nullity. This being so, whether there was any material irregularity in the proclamation and conduct of the Sale or not is of no consequence. 25. Let us now look at the irregularities to which my attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the revisionist. It was contended that the proclamation in Z.A. Form 74 did not contain all the information required to be mentioned therein. I would agree with the learned Commissioner that non-mentioned of the land revenue in respect of the land on which the Cold Storage stands, though an omission is not so material as could be said to have caused a substantial injury to the revisionist. But besides land revenue the value of the property as assessed in terms of Chapter XV of the Revenue Manual is also required to be given is the proclamation. No such value was mentioned. The sums of money that were to be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the sale of the property in question were also incorrectly mentioned and no account was taken of the amount of interest that had fallen due during the three year preceding the proclamation nor of the electricity dues which were also recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the sale of the same property. The auction was concluded as soon as a bid which is sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in the proclamation plus 10% Collection charge was offered. This would lend support to the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the revisionist that had the correct amount of the sum due for recovery as arrears of land revenue from the sale of the property been mentioned in the proclamation the highest bid offered would have been very much higher or else the Sale Officer would have adjourned the auction. In my view the fact that the correct amount of the sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue was not mentioned in the proclamation is a material irregularity which has caused injury to the interest of the revisionist. The sale is, therefore, on this account also liable to be set aside. 26. It was also contended on behalf of the revisionist that the auction in which only two real brother were bidding one against the other could not be considered to be a fair auction. However, no objection to this was taken at the time the sale was conducted and I, therefore, hold that though it was desirable that more bidders had taken part at the auction, the mere fact that only two brothers were bidding at the auction cannot by itself be held to be an irregularity. 27. With regard to the contention that the property was not sufficiently described in the proclamation, I would say that there is force in this contention. In the copy of the proclamation on the file (Page 111) location of the Cold Storage has been given as 'Khasra plot No. 63 of Village Jasuri, Pargana Mahijhwar, tahsil Chandauli, District Varanasi.' This is as per schedule 'A' attached to the recovery certificate received from the U.P.F.D. However, schedule 'B' of the recovery certificate which gives details of the machinery and the plant is not given. Nor is there any mention in the proclamation of the admitted facts that the land on which the Cold Storage is constructed lies within the Town limits of Chandauli that it is close to the G.T. Road as also to the Chandauli railway station. Details given in the proclamation are in my view very sketchy and do not convey to the intending purchasers the fact of its advantageous location. Details given in the proclamation are in my view very sketchy and do not convey to the intending purchasers the fact of its advantageous location. Then the proclamation was published only in the Hindi Daily 'Aaj' of Varanasi and that too only a few days before the Sale actually took place. For the kind property that was sought to be sold namely a Cold Storage worth many lacs of rupees the publicity given to the sale was not adequate. I therefore, hold that on account of all these deficiencies in the proclamation, the interest of the revisionist suffered a substantial injury and the sale is liable to be set aside on this ground also. 28. The contention by the learned counsel for Allahabad Bank that the sum owned by the revisionist firm to them should also have been added to the sum shown as due for recovery as arrears of land revenue cannot be accepted. There is nothing to show that the Bank had referred to Collector, Varanasi the recovery of any such sum upto the time the proclamation was issued. 29. In the light of the foregoing the revision is allowed and the order of the Commissioner dated November 28, 1977 as well as auction sale dated August 25, 1977 is set aside and the case remanded to Collector, Varanasi for fresh sale in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 30. Before parting with the case, I would like to add that the record received from the district has been very haphazardly maintained and papers placed on the file do not always follow a Chronological order. Since sale proceedings taken for recovery of sums of money as arrears of land revenue are judicial proceedings more care should be taken in the maintenance of the sale records.