ORDER S.K. Sahgal, I.A.S., Chairman. - This is a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order of the Additional Commissioner Meerut dated 16-6-81 setting aside the order dated 27-7-79, passed by the Additional Collector, Meerut, in a case for recovery of dues. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Wali Dad Khan was in arrears of Rs. 23,078/71 paise on account of a loan advanced by the State Bank of India. Recovery proceedings commenced against him, his plots in dispute were auctioned on 22-5-79. Latif Ali offered the highest bid for Rs. 35,000/-. The entire amount of auction money was deposited by the auction-purchaser as per rules. No objection was filed against the auction sale but the Additional Collector through his order dated 27-7-79 set aside the auction sale and directed the defaulter to deposit the dues within the time allowed in the order. Latif Ali, auction-purchaser felt aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector dated 27-7-79 and went up in appeal to the Additional Commissioner who set aside giving rise to the present revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and the D.G.C. (R) and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that a number of material irregularities were committed in effecting the sale and as such it should be considered to be no sale at all. He therefore justified the action of the Collector in setting it aside. 4. Learned D.G.C. (R) has argued that the sale was confirmed by the Collector against which remedy lies only by way of a regular suit. He has further argued that the Collector has no power to set aside sale except under rule 285 (H) of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules i.e. when the defaulter reaches within 30 days with money and costs, which has not been claimed. He has also argued that a court sale cannot fetch the same price as in voluntary sale. 5. Learned counsel tor opposite party i.e. the auction purchaser has argued that rules 285 (I) and 285 (K) of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules bar any application or relief on the ground of irregularities etc. The aggrieved person must go in a regular suit for relief. 6. I have given very careful thought to the arguments advanced by all the learned counsel. The aggrieved person must go in a regular suit for relief. 6. I have given very careful thought to the arguments advanced by all the learned counsel. The relevant provisions of the rule applicable in this case are rule 285 (H), rule 285-I, rule 285-J and rule 285-K of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. Taking action under rule 285-H would have been the proper way for the revisionist for establishing his bona fides. No valid grounds have been advanced in jurisdiction of not taking action under this rule. Mention was made by learned counsel for the revisionist of steps taken to obtain stay orders from the Revenue Minister. But we are here concerned with the provisions of law and bound by them. Rule 285-J very clearly requires the Collector to pass an order confirming the sale if no application has been made under rule 285-H to the Collector and under rule 285-I to the Commissioner within 30 days from the date of the sale. It has not been contended by the revisionist that he made any application under rule 285-I to the Commissioner within the prescribed period of 30 days. In view of this, the Collector was enjoined to pass an order confirming the sale under rule 285-I. Instead, the Additional Collector passed a very purfunctory order on 27-7-79 and set aside the sale without applying his mind to whether he was at all authorised to pass such an order. In fact, there is no provision of law under which the Collector could have passed such an order in the absence of compliance of the provisions of rule 285-H by the revisionist. The only option open to the Collector was to confirm the sale under rule 285-J, once the prescribed period of 30 days had expired and no action had been taken by the revisionist under rules 285-H and 285-I. 7. Rule 285-K goes even further than 285-J and bars all claims on the ground of irregularity and mistake in publishing and conducting the sale if no application under rule 285-I has been made to the Commissioner for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale. The only remedy is regular proceedings in a civil court as indicated in the proviso to rule 285-K. 8. The only remedy is regular proceedings in a civil court as indicated in the proviso to rule 285-K. 8. In view of the foregoing, the learned Additional Commissioner was entirely right in taking the view that he did and in setting aside the impugned order of the Additional Collector dated 27-7-1979. As such I find little substance in the revision which is hereby dismissed.