Judgment N.P.Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing an auction sale held on April 11, 1980, in respect of plot No. 714, khata No. 83 of Mahalla Mandiri, Patna, in connection with a certificate proceeding which had been filed before the Certificate Officer, Patna, for realisation of Rs: 13,09,327 as estate duty from one Mosst. Barti Devi after the demise of her husband, Dwarka Mahto. The said Dwarka Mahto died on April 12, 1965, leaving behind the aforesaid Barti Devi as his heir and legal representative. 2. The certificate case in question was filed on November 1, 1969, notice thereof was served on Barti Devi, who appeared and filed her objection. Barti Devi died during the pendency of the certificate case. Before her death, she is alleged to have executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner in respect of properties which originally belonged to the aforesaid Dwarka Mahto. The petitioner was substituted in place of Barti Devi, after her death, in the certificate case. 3. In due course, several items of properties, which originally belonged to Dwarka Mahto, were put on sale for realisation of the dues aforesaid along with interest. One such sale was held in respect of plot No. 714 mentioned above on April 11, 1980. As respondent No. 6 offered the highest bid of Rs. 3,06,000, his offer was accepted. He deposited one-fourth of the bid money the same day and was directed to deposit the balance amount. According to the petitioner, the sale aforesaid was a nullity, and, as such, liable to be set aside. The petitioner filed appeal before the Collector against the order aforesaid dated April 11, 1980, which was dismissed on February 11, 1981, as time-barred. Revision applications before the Commissioner of the Division and the Member, Board of Revenue, filed on behalf of the petitioner were also dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed appeal before the Collector against the order aforesaid dated April 11, 1980, which was dismissed on February 11, 1981, as time-barred. Revision applications before the Commissioner of the Division and the Member, Board of Revenue, filed on behalf of the petitioner were also dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from the order sheet of the Certificate Officer, it would appear that the delay in the disposal of the certificate case was primarily due to the negligence on the part of the Estate Duty Department which was making prayer for adjournments to furnish the details of the properties which were liable to be sold for realisation of the estate duty and this has caused great prejudice to the petitioner because the petitioner has been compelled to pay interest for the period the certificate case remained pending. In other words, according to the petitioner, if the Department had furnished the list of the properties which were to be sold at an early date, there was no occasion to sell plot No. 714 in question. l am not able to appreciate this argument on behalf of a certificate debtor. In the present case, there is no dispute that an amount of Rs. 13,09,327 was payable as estate duty which had to be realised out of the properties left behind by Dwarka Mahto in view of Sec. 53 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). Relevant portions of Sec. 53 of the Act are as follows : "53. (1) Where any property passes on the death of the deceased- (a) every legal representative to whom such property so passes for any beneficial interest in possession or in whom any interest in the property so passing is at any time vested.... (c) every person in whom any interest in the property so passing is vested in possession by alienation or other derivative title, shall be accountable for the whole of the estate duty on the property passing on the death but shall not be liable for any duty in excess of the assets of the deceased which he actually received or which, but for his own neglect or default, he might have received". Because of Sec. 53 aforesaid, Barti Devi was liable to pay the estate duty being the legal representative of Dwarka Mahto, and after her death, this petitioner became liable having acquired the properties which belonged to Dwarka Mahto through a deed of gift executed by Barti Devi during the pendency of the certificate case. It is not in dispute that the plot which had been sold belonged to Dwarka Mahto in respect of which Barti Devi executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in possession of a property belonging to Dwarka Mahto on the basis of the deed of gift which would make him accountable for payment of the estate duty under Section 53(1)(c) of the Act. If the petitioner had wanted to avoid the increase in interest due to lapse of time, either he should have paid the duty at the earliest occasion or should have furnished the list of properties after sale whereof the duty could have been realised. Having not done either, he cannot make a grievance that he has been compelled to pay a higher amount as interest because the certificate case remained pending for a longer period. 5 It was then submitted that respondent No. 6, the auction purchaser, having deposited one-fourth of the bid money, failed to deposit the balance amount by the date fixed by the Certificate Officer, which, according to the petitioner, shall render the auction sale void. On behalf of the petitioner, no details have been furnished as to how the period for deposit of the balance amount by the auction purchaser was extended by the Certificate Officer. In any case, it is not possible to hold that merely because the balance amount was deposited by respondent No. 6 on the basis of the extension granted by the Certificate Officer, the auction sale itself shall be deemed to be a nullity. From the records it would appear that the petitioner filed a belated appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed as time-barred, and, thereafter, has virtually produced no material in support of his contention that the auction sale, which is under challenge, had been held against any mandatory provision of law, before the Commissioner or before the Member, Board of Revenue, who could have examined the grievance. In such a situation, it is very difficult for this court to hold any infirmity in respect of the auction sale which has been challenged. 6. In the result, this writ application is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. S.S.Sandhawalia, J. 7 I agree.