JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member. - The L.M.C. concerned allotted Abadi plot No. 483 to Swaroop Singh. Smt. Krishna Devi moved an application under rule 115-N, Z.A. Rules fro its cancellation. On December 31, 1965 the S.D.O. cancelled the allotment, and accepted the bid of Smt. Krishna Devi. Swaroop Singh went up in revision which was allowed by the Board of Revenue on October 15, 1969. Smt Krishna Devi filed a suit which was allowed on May 1, 1972 and a finding was given that the Board of Revenue had no power to interfere with the finding of fact given that the Board of Revenue has no power to interfere with the finding of fact given by the trial court. Then Krishna Devi applied to the S.D.O. that the L.M.C. be restrained from re-auctioning the land. The learned S.D.O. passed a favourable order on the application of Smt. Krishna Devi. 2. Against the S.D.O.'s Order a revision was filed. The learned Addl. Commissioner, was of the view that under Rule 115-N the S.D.O. had no order to direct allotment or accept any bid. He was of the view that the learned S.D.O. Should have cancelled the auction made in favour of Swaroop Singh. Hence the learned Additional Commissioner has made a recommendation that the revision be allowed and the learned that court order be set aside. An objection has been filed against that recommendation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the Judgment of the learned High Court which held that he finding of fact given by the learned S.D.O. on December 31, 1965 must prevail. The operation of the learned S.D.O. order dated December 31, 1965 was, "In view of the above the highest bid of Rs. 170/- offered by Smt. Krishana Devi through her nephew Smt. Brij Kishore is accepted. More so because it is for charitable purpose." This order of the learned S.D.O. Was confirmed by the learned High court. In my opinion that is the end of the matter. Now no court, inferior in rank that the High Court, can go against that final Judgment. If the order of the learned High Court was wrong, it should have been challenged in the Supreme COurt or in the High Court itself. Now to challenge the S.D.O.'s order dated December 31, 1965 will be nothing else than challenging learned High Court's order. If the order of the learned High Court was wrong, it should have been challenged in the Supreme COurt or in the High Court itself. Now to challenge the S.D.O.'s order dated December 31, 1965 will be nothing else than challenging learned High Court's order. This I dare not to do. In the instant case the Order of the learned High Court has to be respected on pain of punishment for contempt of Court. The learned counsel for the revisions has cited 1973 S.C. 915 in which it was held that procedure prescribed must be followed. It was held that, "where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be one in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden." That ruling does not apply to the present case because here the highest court of U.P. has confirmed a certain order. It may be right or wrong but in must be respected by subordinate courts. The learned Supreme Court did not say in therefore said ruling that order or Superior courts should be ignored because on some other ground it can be shown to be wrong. The law is clear that was wrong orders of Superior courts must be obeyed. There must be a finality in judgment, otherwise these would be no end to litigation and the superior courts will become ineffective and useless. Another ruling cited in S.O.C. No. 14, 1982 A.W.C. page 8 in which a learned judge of the Allahabad High Court held that, "affirmance of the order in appeal could not infuse life into an order which was wholly void and ineffectual in law where an order is challenged as being wholly ultra vires on the ground of being beyond the jurisdiction of the authority purporting to pass that order, the affirmance of that order in appeal would not affect the interest, invalidity and nullity of the order "This is all the ruling says because it is only a summary of cases. Facts of the case have not been given, and we cannot say with assurance that that observation will apply in the instant case also. Secondly the above observation was made by the High Court, perhaps in a case in which it was deciding a case arising out of an order of a subordinate court. Facts of the case have not been given, and we cannot say with assurance that that observation will apply in the instant case also. Secondly the above observation was made by the High Court, perhaps in a case in which it was deciding a case arising out of an order of a subordinate court. The same observation cannot be made by a Subordinate court against the order of a superior court, because the order of the superior court has to be obeyed by all interior courts. So this ruling also is not helpful. 4. My view is that this court cannot should not, must not even think of going against the order of the learned High Court passed in this very case. 5. Moreover I think that the order dated December 31, 1965, confirmed by the learned High Court itself was a proper and just order and it was not beyond the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.O. An auction had been made and it was found out that(b) the final bidder was Smt. Krishna Devi, that (2) the name of Swarup Singh was fraudulently shown as the highest bidder and that (3) the allotment was finally made in Swarup Singh's favour on the basis of that forgery. Having detected the forgery the learned S.D.O. Found out that really highest bidder was Smt. Krishna Devi and she therefore cancelled the allotment made in favour of Swarup Singh and accepted the bid of Smt. Krishna Devi. No illegality was committed. In my opinion that was the only under which could be passed in that case. There was no sense in ordering re-auction. The auction was valid and the highest bidder was Smt. Krihsna Devi. Her bid was bound to be accepted. It would be deemed that her bid was accepted. It would be deemed that her bid was accepted. It would be deemed that her bid was accepted, because the order bid was found to be result of a forgery. This was all that the learned S.D.O. did in this impugned order. 6. I wholly disagree with the recommendation of the learned Additional commissioner and so I do no accept it the revision petition is hereby dismissed with costs and 100/- as counsels fees.