JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- This writ petition has been directed against the judgment of Shri Ashwini Kumar, (the then Member, Board of Revenue) dated 22-7-1976 whereby the petitioner's objection regarding the sold house stands rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners are claiming interest in the house sold in satisfaction of the excise dues amounting to Rs. 38577.45 against Chhabi Nath (opposite party no. 3 in the present writ petition). The auction sale took place on 6-5-1971. The petitioners had filed an application dated 28-4-1971. Against the attachment and sale of the house in question. It appears that the Commissioner had stayed the proceedings for sale but the stay order was communicated to the officer concerned after the auction sale on 6-5-1971, whereas it had reached the office of the Collector on 5-5-1971. On 25-5-1971 also the petitioner filed an objection for setting aside the sale which took place on 6-5-1971. The Commissioner, Varanasi through his order dated 3-11-1971 (contained in Annexure I attached with the writ petition) set aside the sale and accepted the claim of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Commissioner, Varanasi, the U.P. State had gone in revision and the revisional court through its impugned order dated 22-7-1976 has set aside the order of the Commissioner in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional court has patently erred in setting aside the order of the Commissioner dated 3-11-1971. He has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1954 Supreme Court page 349, Manni Lal Mohan Lal Shah and others v. Sardar Syed Mohammad and another. The aforesaid ruling deals with the provisions of order 21, Rules 84 to 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Similar are the provisions contained in Sections 167 to 175 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 4. The aforesaid ruling deals with the provisions of order 21, Rules 84 to 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Similar are the provisions contained in Sections 167 to 175 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the auction purchaser failed to deposit l/4th money immediately and he has not deposited the remaining th even by now, hence there is no sale of the house in dispute and the revisional court has erred in directing further proceedings of the sale to take place, in the circumstances of the present case. 5. Sufficient opportunity was given to the State to put forward its claim before this Court but no effective assistance has been given by the counsel for the State. 6. As regards the petitioners contention that th money was not deposited immediately, hence the sale was bad in law, I have my own difficulty in accepting the contention in the circumstances of the present case. It has been suggested that the alleged auction sale took place on 6-5-1971 and a Treasury receipt has been produced to demonstrate that the money was deposited on 10-5-1971, hence it was contended that th money was not deposited immediately. It is a matter of common experience that when an auction sale takes place at a place a little far off from the head quarter, the money is deposited in Treasury within reasonable time hence on production of the Treasury receipt I am unable to arrive at a definite conclusion that l/4th money was not deposited immediately. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to characterise the sale in question as invalid on the ground that th money was not deposited immediately as contemplated by the provisions of Section 167 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 7. Next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that th of the purchase money has not been deposited within 15 days of the alleged auction sale hence the sale is a nullity and it should not be given effect to. The revisional court has patently erred in this regard. 7. Next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that th of the purchase money has not been deposited within 15 days of the alleged auction sale hence the sale is a nullity and it should not be given effect to. The revisional court has patently erred in this regard. It has also been suggested that even l/4th money deposited by the auction purchaser has been taken back by him, hence there is no sale in the eye of law and the revisional court has patently erred in directing the Collector to take further proceedings in the case under law in consequence of the auction sale which was made in respect of the house in question on 6-5-1971. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in no circumstance the period of 15 days contemplated in Section 168 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act can be extended. He has invited my attention to paragraph 8 of the aforesaid Ruling of the Supreme Court and paragraph 12 thereof and he has emphasised the following observation - ".......We do not think that the inherent powers of the Court could be invoked to circumvent the mandatory provisions of the Code and relieve the purchasers of their obligation to make the deposit." 8. The reading of the judgments attached with the writ petition indicates that the auction purchaser did not deposit the remaining th money due to the stay order passed by the Commissioner. I have my own doubts that non-payment of th money by the auction purchaser within 15 days of the alleged auction sale would stand in the way of the auction purchaser acquiring the house in question but in the present case if it is a fact that the auction purchaser withdrew his th money deposited in pursuance of the auction sale knocked down, no equity exists in favour of the auction purchaser at present. In A.I.R. 1957 Allahabad 558, Nand Lal v. Smt. Siddiquan and others, a learned Single Judge of this Court has indicated that the mandatory provision of Order 21 Rule 26 C.P.C. requires the Court to resell the property in case there is failure to deposit the purchase money within 15 days. According to him even the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked for extending the period. 9. According to him even the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked for extending the period. 9. In the present case Section 168 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act also provides similar provisions as order 21 Rule 26 of Civil Procedure Code. Because th money has not been deposited by the auction purchaser as yet and probably he has taken back th money already deposited in pursuance of the alleged auction sale on 6-5-1971 in his favour, the observation of the revisional court to the effect that the Collector will take further proceedings in the case under law in consequence of the auction sale which was made in respect of the house in question on 6-5-1971 appears to me patently erroneous. The interest of justice demands that the Collector should sell the property in question and give proper opportunities to the persons interested to file their claims with regard to the house in question. 10. Section 175 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act reads as below -"If no application under Section 173 is made within the time allowed therefore all claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale shall be barred. Nothing herein contained shall bar the institution of a suit in the Civil Court for the purpose of setting aside a sale on the ground of fraud." 11. If the allegations made on behalf of the petitioners are correct that they have interest in the house sold and the house has been wrongly held as the property of opposite party no. 3 the petitioners have an alternative remedy to prove their claim in a competent suit. Since more than six years have passed after the impugned judgment, I do not consider it a fit case to throw the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. 12. The petitioners put forward a claim in the house in question and their claim appears to have been rejected by the Collector through his order dated 31-3-1971 and the revisional court has made the following observation : "...............Indeed, the learned counsel for the opposite parties argues that the Collector's order dated 31-3-1971 was not passed under any provisions of law and was without jurisdiction. Be that as it may, that fact remains that the objection application was moved by Amar Nath and Munna Lal themselves and its disposal order by the Collector was not challenged by the objectors in any court of law. In these circumstances it is incorrect for the learned Commissioner to observe that the entire proceedings in the case were rushed through." 13. To my mind the above observation of the revisional court is not correct. If the petitioners have interest in the property their claim should be investigated by the authority concerned before rejecting the same. If the revisional court had come to the conclusion that the order dated 31-3-1971 was passed by a competent Authority and had become final against the petitioners, the matter would have stood on different footing but in not doing so the revisional court has patently erred and wrongly set aside the order of the Commissioner. 14. For the foregoing discussions the writ petition succeeds in part and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 22-7-1976 is hereby quashed to this extent that the Collector will take further proceedings in the case in consequence of the auction sale which was made in respect of the house in question on 6-5-1971. Rather, the Collector will resell the property strictly in accordance with law and give proper opportunities to the parties to put forward their claims. There would be no order as to costs.