JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the Single Judge. 2. The question before the learned Single Judge was, as to whether the auction held by the Panchayat was valid. The learned Single Judge decided this question on the basis of the provision of Rule 263. While dealing with that question, he has made reference to the pari-materia provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code which came up for consideration and interpretation before the Supreme Court in Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Ors. v. Sarder Sayed Ahmed Syed Mahntad and Anr., reported in AIR 1954 SC 349 (Vol. 41, C.N. 84) and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the learned Judge held that the auction and sale was a nullity. There is no dispute on facts. The auction in this case took place on March 2 and 3, 1981 - 20 percent bid money was immediately paid on the spot by the petitioner and admittedly the remaining balance of Rs. 7991/- was not paid within the prescribed period of two months. Rule 263 (1) clearly lays down that the person who made the last and highest bid shall deposit the balance amount within two months from the date of auction. The language of the Rule 263 is quite clear and express and observance of the Rule 263 has not been made. Within two months from the date of auction, the balance amount was not deposited. It was deposited after confirmation by the Collector. The period of two months has to be reckoned from the date of auction and not from the date of confirmation by the Collector. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that as there has been contravention of Rule 263, the auction and sale are nullity. 3. It was next contended that as there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, 10 percent deduction has wrongly been made out of the money deposited by the petitioner. If the petitioner has not paid the balance amount within two months, the Rule 263 is very clear that the amount deposited initially at the time of knocking the bid shall not be refunded. The sub-rule (2) of the Rule 263 makes it clear in no uncertain terms. If the petitioner has not paid the balance amount within two months, the Rule 263 is very clear that the amount deposited initially at the time of knocking the bid shall not be refunded. The sub-rule (2) of the Rule 263 makes it clear in no uncertain terms. It lays down that 10 per cent of the amount deposited at the time of original sale shall not be refunded. In view of this clear provision of Rule 263 the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the initial deposit made by him at the time of knocking down of the bid in his favour. 4. No other point except the one regarding the direction in connection with forgery was pressed before the learned Single Judge and so no new point can be allowed to be agitated. There are no reasons to interfere in this direction as observed by the learned Judge. 5. This appeal, therefore, fails and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******