ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 arising out of auction sale proceedings for the realisation of arrears of sale tax. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :- There was certain amount outstanding against one Mitthan Lal as arrears of sales tax and for the recovery of that amount as arrears of land revenue Collector, Moradabad ordered for the auction of shop situated in Chandausi district Moradabad, belonging to Mitthan Lal. In para 2 of the writ petition it has been averred that the Collector. Moradabad, after making compliance of law, ordered for auction of the shop in question on 20th Mar. 1979. On that date Assistant Collector/Deputy Collector (Collection) auctioned the shop in question and the petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs. 13,500/- The petitioner deposited one-fourth amount of the bid on the spot on 20th Mar. 1979, and the rest of the money was deposited within fifteen days from the date of auction. 3. The papers regarding auction sale were forwarded by the Assistant Collector to the Additional District Magistrate for orders regarding confirmation of sale. It has been averred in para 3 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 5 Smt. Krishna Kumari moved an application on 9th May. 1979. before the Additional District Magistrate. Moradabad. wherein she had indicated that she is prepared to purchase the said shop for Rs. 20,000/- and the auction has been wrongly made for Rs. 13,500/-. Hence the property ordered to be re-auctioned. The Additional Collector vide order dated 9th May, 1979, did not approve the said bid and cancelled the auction held on 20th March 1979, and directed the property to be re-auctioned. It was further provided in the order that if it would fetch less than Rs. 20,000/- in auction, the applicant (Respondent No. 5) shall have to purchase it for Rs. 20,000/-. The respondent No. 3. who was exercising the powers of Collector, thus, refused to confirm the auction held on 20th Mar. 1979, and rejected the highest bid of Rs. 13,500/- offered by the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred an appeal before Commissioner. Bareilly, which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 13th, Nov. 1979. 5. Still feeling aggrieved by the order, petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. 1979, and rejected the highest bid of Rs. 13,500/- offered by the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred an appeal before Commissioner. Bareilly, which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 13th, Nov. 1979. 5. Still feeling aggrieved by the order, petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. U.P. at Allahabad, which too was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 24th Sept. 1983. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that the Collector had no jurisdiction to disapprove highest bid and refuse confirmation of the auction sale of immovable property put to sale for the recovery of arrears recoverable as arrears of land revenue. According to him it was the Commissioner, who was vested with that power and in support of his contention he referred to R. 285-J of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 thereinafter referred to as the Rules) and urged that the order passed by the Collector refusing to confirm auction sale was, therefore, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. Learned counsel, however, did not press that argument any more on being pointed out that the said R. 285-I was amended by Notification No. 196-11-1 (11)-7-3, Rajaswa-1, dated 18th Feb. 1974, w.e.f. 15th Mar. 1974, and under the substituted R. 285-J the Collector was vested with the power to consider the matter regarding confirmation of sale and to pass order in that behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner had built up his argument with reference to the unamended R. 285-J of the Rules, which is not sustainable. 7. Learned counsel next contended that the collector could not refuse to confirm sale merely on the ground that the property was worth more than the highest bid offered by the petitioner. According to him inadequacy of the price fetched in auction sale could not be a ground for setting aside the sale and refusing to confirm it. Learned counsel contended that, besides the application moved by respondent No. 5, there was no material before the Collector to form an opinion that the property in question was worth more than the highest bid offered by the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that, besides the application moved by respondent No. 5, there was no material before the Collector to form an opinion that the property in question was worth more than the highest bid offered by the petitioner. He thus urged that the order passed by the Collector regarding re-auction of the property was manifestly erroneous and illegal being violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as before passing the said order the Collector had not given any notice of hearing to the petitioner. 8. In support of his argument learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision reported in 1966 All LJ 1072, Dharti Narayan v. Parsidh Narayan wherein the judgment-debtor applied to the Court to set aside the sale by making the necessary deposit within thirty days of the sale under Or. XXI R. 89 of the Civil PC. It was held that once the judgment-debtor has made this deposit he has done all that he is required and he is not concerned with what the court must do before setting aside the sale. It is for the court to give notice to its own transferee before setting aside the sale. 9. This decision in the present case is of no assistance to the petitioner because in that case application for setting aside the sale was moved under Or. XXI R. 89 of the Civil PC by the judgment-debtor making deposit of the amount in court within thirty days of the sale. Thus the appropriate order could be passed on such application after hearing the auction-purchaser, who could urge and point out to the court on relevant questions whether application was within limitation and also whether the deposit made by the judgment-debtor was sufficient or not as was required under the Rules. In the present case the Additional Collector, received papers which were forwarded by the Assistant Collector, who had conducted the sale, for appropriate orders regarding approval of aforesaid bid offered at auction sale. The highest bid was to become final only on the approval and its acceptance by the Collector as was envisaged by Condition No. 5 of the terms and conditions subject to which auction sale was held. The Respondent No. 3, therefore, could pass an order either confirming, or refusing the highest bid offered at the auction sale conducted on 20th Mar. 1979. The Respondent No. 3, therefore, could pass an order either confirming, or refusing the highest bid offered at the auction sale conducted on 20th Mar. 1979. The Respondent No.3, on being satisfied that the property in question was worth more than the highest bid offered by the petitioner, refused to accept the said highest bid and directed the property to be re-auctioned. While passing that order it was not incumbent on him to have issued notice to the highest bidder in the auction while refusing to approve and confirm the said bid because there could be no question for negotiation with him on the point about the adequacy or inadequacy of the bid or for enhancing the bid offered by him at the auction, which could in no manner be modified by mutual negotiation between Collector and the highest bidder. The Collector himself had to form opinion whether to accept the bid or reject it being inadequate looking to value and worth of property and to order re-auction if the bid is not acceptable. The Collector appears to have form his opinion regarding insufficiency of the highest bid offered by the petitioner on the application moved by Respondent No. 5 and he has, while directing re-auction of the property. taken due care in mentioning in the order that in case the property will fetch less than Rs. 20,000/- in the auction, the applicant shall have to purchase, it for Rs. 20,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed this court during argument that in re- auction the property had fetched more than Rs. 20,000/- as the highest bid and the matter regarding its confirmation is still pending awaiting final decision in the present case. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the opinion, which the Collector formed. while directing the property to be re-auctioned, was in any manner erroneous, nor it can be said to be unjust and improper. No doubt, it is correct to say, that in an auction sale property cannot fetch the same adequate price for which it can be sold by negotiations with private parties. But the order of re-auction cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified, if on the face of some material placed before the collector, he could legitimately form an opinion that the property is worth more than the highest bid offered for it in the auction sale. But the order of re-auction cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified, if on the face of some material placed before the collector, he could legitimately form an opinion that the property is worth more than the highest bid offered for it in the auction sale. The Respondent No. 3 appears to have taken all precautions in the matter requiring the respondent No. 5 (depositors that if in re-auction the property, will fetch less than Rs. 20,000/-, she will have to purchase for that amount. The impugned order of the Respondent No. 3 regarding re-auction, therefore, cannot be said to lie unjust and improper in view of the facts stated to above and it calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the aforesaid ground. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner was directed to make deposit of one-fourth amount on the spot and the remaining three-fourth amount he deposited within fifteen days from the date of auction and as such the petitioner would be deemed to have been declared purchaser and no further order in that behalf was needed. He thus urged that the petitioner being a declared purchaser as contemplated under R. 285-D of the Rules and having made the requisite deposit of the entire amount of the highest bid offered by him, he acquired an interest in the property because Confirmation could not be refused by the Collector and he was bound to confirm sale under R. 185-J of the Rules. Learned counsel thus urged that since the petitioner acquired interest in the property as aforesaid and as such Collector without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, could not order re-auction of the property and could not refuse confirmation of the sale, which he was bound to confirm. I am unable to agree with this contention as well. 11. A person, who gives the highest bid in the auction sale, cannot be said to have acquired an interest in the property unless his highest bid is accepted by the competent authority and the sale is confirmed in his favour. I am unable to agree with this contention as well. 11. A person, who gives the highest bid in the auction sale, cannot be said to have acquired an interest in the property unless his highest bid is accepted by the competent authority and the sale is confirmed in his favour. The judgment-debtor would not cease to be the owner of the property without confirmation of the sale by the competent authority conducting sale of his property for the realisation of the amount realizable as arrears of land revenue. It is also indicated by R. 285-M of the Rules that after a sale of holding or other immovable property under the Act has been confirmed in the manner provided under the preceding rules, the Collector shall put the person declared to be purchaser into possession of such property, and shall grant him a certificate to the effect that he has purchased the property to which the certificate refers and such certificate shall be deemed to be a valid transfer of such property, but need not be registered as a conveyance except, as provided by S. 89 of the Registration Act. 1908. It is thus amply clear that the highest bidder would acquire right, title or interest in the property only after the confirmation of sale and till then he would not acquire any interest in the property merely on his depositing the amount of highest bid offered by him in the auction sale. The mere fact that the Assistant Collector, who conducted the auction sale had accepted the deposit of highest bid amount made by the petitioner, did not conclude the sale, which would be complete only after an order regarding confirmation of sale had been passed by the Collector. Since no order confirming sale was passed by the Respondent No. 3 and as such the auction sale was not complete the petitioner cannot be said to have acquired any right, title or interest in the property merely on the ground of his depositing the amount of bid offered by him. Thus, in my opinion, it was not necessary for the Collector to give notice to the petitioner before refusing to accept the bid offered by hint as he could not have an say in the matter at that stags, and the order of re-auction appears to have been validly passed. 12. Thus, in my opinion, it was not necessary for the Collector to give notice to the petitioner before refusing to accept the bid offered by hint as he could not have an say in the matter at that stags, and the order of re-auction appears to have been validly passed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to R. 285-J of the Rules to indicate that the Collector had no option but to confirm the sale because no application was moved by the defaulter under R. 25-H or R. 285-i of the Rules for setting aside the sale. Learned counsel further pointed out that the only ground on which the collector could refuse to confirm sale was the contravention of provisions of S 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Reforms Act, which would relate only to sale of agricultural land holding and not in respect. of other immovable properties. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus urged that the impugned order passed by the Collector refusing to confirm sale was illegal and without jurisdiction. I am unable to agree with this contention. 13. In the present case, it is evident from the Board's order that in Condition No. 5 regarding auction sale it was specifically provided that the acceptance of the highest bid would be subject to the confirmation of the Collector and the highest bid would be considered to be final only after its acceptance by the Collector. Thus in view of this specific condition the Collector could accept the bid or reject the same. Under R.285-A of the Rules every sale tinder Sections 284 and 286 shall be made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf. It further provides that the Collector may, from time to time, postpone the sale. In para 2 of the writ petition it has been averred that Collector. Moradabad, after making compliance of law, ordered for auction of shop in question on 20th March 1979. According to aforesaid condition No. 5 the highest bid offered at the auction sale was to be taken to be final only after its acceptance, by the Collector. The Collector, therefore, had jurisdiction to accept it or to reject it. In the present case the Collector, on being satisfied that the highest bid offered by the petitioner is inadequate. According to aforesaid condition No. 5 the highest bid offered at the auction sale was to be taken to be final only after its acceptance, by the Collector. The Collector, therefore, had jurisdiction to accept it or to reject it. In the present case the Collector, on being satisfied that the highest bid offered by the petitioner is inadequate. refused to accept it and ordered re-auction of the property. Thus such an order could be passed by the Collector apart from the question of confirmation of the sale. 14. For exercising the right either to accept or not to accept the highest bid offered at a particular auction sale in respect of property put to auction, the Collector need not wait for a period of thirty days to expire within which application under Rules 285-H and 285-I can be presented, nor he has to wait till the disposal of such application, because it would be erroneous and- not maintainable unless bid is accepted. He has to proceed to consider either to accept or reject the highest bid offered at any time after the bid is received and the exercise of such inherent power by the collector conducting the sale of an immovable property under R. 285-A of the Rules has nothing to do with the power exercisable by him regarding confirmation of sale envisaged under R.285-J of the Rules, nor it can be governed or regulated by the provisions of that Rule. Thus, in view of what has been said above I am of the opinion that the Collector, apart from having a power regarding making of confirmation of sale or its refusal as envisaged under R. 285-J of the Rules also holds an inherent power either to accept or reject the highest bid in auction of an immovable property conducted under R. 285-A of the Rules, on the ground that the bid offered is inadequate and to make order regarding re-auction of property. In this view of the matter I do not find that the impugned order passed by opposite-party No. 3 directing the re-auction of the property to be illegal and without jurisdiction nor it can be said to be unjust and improper. 15. In this view of the matter I do not find that the impugned order passed by opposite-party No. 3 directing the re-auction of the property to be illegal and without jurisdiction nor it can be said to be unjust and improper. 15. Learned counsel, however, further argued that the Collector, even if he has taken to be vested with the power and discretion to accept or reject the highest bid but such power could not be exercised after the bid amount was deposited by the petitioner. His contention was that the deposit of bid amount was accepted by the Assistant Collector conducting the sale and as such petitioner would be taken to have been declared by him to be purchaser of the property as envisaged under R. 285-D of the Rules. Learned counsel placing reliance on 1950 All LJ 653 Ebadullah Khan v. Municipal Board, Allahabad urged that no formal order regarding petitioners declaration as auction purchaser of property would be needed and hence acceptance of the bid money would amount to a declaration of the petitioner to be the auction purchaser of property in question. He thus contended that after making of deposit of bid money the opposite party No. 3 could not refuse to accept the bid and order re-auction of property. I am unable to accept this contention as well. It is clear from the aforesaid Condition No. 5 of the terms and condition of auction sale that the highest bid would become final only on its acceptance by the Collector. Thus, upon the acceptance of the bid by the Collector, the highest bidder would be taken to have been declared a purchaser of the property in the auction sale and not otherwise. This bid of the petitioner cannot be taken to have been automatically accepted by the Collector on the petitioner's making deposit of the bid amount. There is no such deeming provision in the Rules. The bid was to be either accepted or rejected as a matter of fact, and, it is only on the acceptance of the highest bid that the bidder would be taken to have been declared purchaser. 16. There is no such deeming provision in the Rules. The bid was to be either accepted or rejected as a matter of fact, and, it is only on the acceptance of the highest bid that the bidder would be taken to have been declared purchaser. 16. R. 285-D provides that the person declared to be purchaser shall be required to deposit immediately twenty-five per cent of the amount of bid and the remaining amount he has to deposit within fifteen days from the date of sale as required unto R. 285-E of the Rules. In the present case the Collector had not accepted the bid of petitioner prior to making of deposit of bid amount by him and as such any deposit made by him will not operate to confer any right nor it will amount to a declaration of the petitioner to be purchaser of the property in question. The Assistant Collector conducting the auction was not authorised to accept the highest bid offered in the auction as is evident from Condition No. 5 referred to above, and as such the acceptance of deposit by him of the bid amount cannot amount to a declaration of petitioner to be the auction purchaser of the property. The acceptance of the deposit of bid money from the highest bidder by the Amin or other officer conducting sale would not amount to declaration of the bidder to be the auction purchaser of the property if the Amin or the officer was not authorised to accept or reject the highest bid by an order of the Collector in this behalf. The deposit of the bid amount by the petitioner and its acceptance by the Assistant Collector conducting auction will have no adverse legal effect and bearing on the Collector's power in the matter regarding accepting or rejecting the highest bid offered in the auction. Thus the deposit of bid amount by the petitioner could in no manner take away the right of Respondent No. 3 to accept or reject the bid in question. It would be an altogether different matter if the Respondent No. 3 would not have reserved the right regarding acceptance and finalisation of bid and the Assistant Collector conducting auction sale would have been given also a right to accept or reject the highest bid offered at the auction sale in pursuance of Collector's order in that behalf. It would be an altogether different matter if the Respondent No. 3 would not have reserved the right regarding acceptance and finalisation of bid and the Assistant Collector conducting auction sale would have been given also a right to accept or reject the highest bid offered at the auction sale in pursuance of Collector's order in that behalf. In that event merely the acceptance of the deposit of the amount of bid could be said to amount to a declaration of petitioner to be purchaser of property. The Collector in that event would not have been required to grant approval of the highest bid and he could then exercise power envisaged under R. 285-J of the Rules regarding confirmation of sale or its rejection within the ambit of said Rule. However, in the present case, as already stated above, the Collector had reserved that right to himself and as such the Respondent No. 3 could pass order either accepting or rejecting the bid in question and, in my opinion, he has rightly and validly passed appropriate order regarding re-auction of the property and thereby rejected the bid of the petitioner, which appeared to be inadequate. 17. R. 285-J of the Rules provides that on expiration of thirty days from the date of sale if no such application as mentioned under R. 285-H or R. 285-I of the Rules has been made by the judgment-debtor/defaulter or if such application has been made and rejected by the Collector or the Commissioner, then the Collector, shall pass an order confirming the sale satisfying himself on the question that there is no contravention of S. 154. It is after the bid is accepted by the Collector that the auction sale can be set aside by the Collector or by the Commissioner on an application moved under Rules 285-H and 285-I by the person, whose property has been sold, within thirty days from the sale. i.e. the date of acceptance of the bid by the Collector or by the officer conducting the sale and expressly authorised to do so by an order of Collector in that behalf without any reservation. i.e. the date of acceptance of the bid by the Collector or by the officer conducting the sale and expressly authorised to do so by an order of Collector in that behalf without any reservation. It is after disposal of said application, if filed, and where no such steps are taken, then after the expiry of the period aforesaid, the question of confirmation would arise an the Collector would then exercise power R. 285-J to confirm the sale and to pass such appropriate order which he may deem fit and proper considering facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from having the power under the aforesaid `provision in the matter regarding confirmation of sale, the Collector. in my opinion, is also vested with inherent power either to accept the highest bid and declare the bidder the purchaser of property or to reject that bid offered at the auction of the property made by him under R. 285-A of the Rules and direct its re-auction in case he is of the opinion that the highest bid offered is inadequate. The question of confirmation of sale would arise and merit its consideration only after the acceptance of the highest bid and not otherwise. 18. In the present case, as already stated above, the Respondent No. 3 cannot be said to have acted illegally or without jurisdiction in refusing to accept the highest bid offered by the petitioner in view of the Condition No. 5 contained in the terms of auction sale referred to above. He appears to have rightly refused to accept the bid offered by the petitioner as it appeared to him to be quite inadequate. The Collector, while-conducting the sale under R. 285-A of the Rules, cannot act with closed eyes and vacant mind. He has to form an opinion whether the highest bid offered in auction sale is adequate or not before accepting it. In my opinion, in the present case on facts brought to his notice the Respondent No. 3 had rightly refused to accept the highest bid of the petitioner and rightly directed re- auction of the property, which I am told by the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the argument, fetched more than Rs. 20,000/- in its re-auction, but the sale has not yet been confirmed awaiting decision in this case. 19. 20,000/- in its re-auction, but the sale has not yet been confirmed awaiting decision in this case. 19. In the result, I find that it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed in limine.