JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - Heard the learned counsels for the parties. A notice was issued to opposite party No. 5 to show cause why the petition be not admitted. A counter affidavit has been filed as well as the rejoinder affidavit. Since the point involved is short, it is agreed upon amongst the learned counsels for different parties that the matter may be finally disposed of at this stage. 2. It appears that the land of the petitioner was auctioned in connection with certain dues standing against him. A sum of the Rs. 45,000/- was taken as loan from Zila Parishad and another sum of Rs. 8,000/- from the U.P. Land Development Bank. This amount was sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, in pursuance where of the auction was held, as mentioned earlier. The petitioner, if appears, file objections before the opposite party No. 2 under Rule 285-1 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules which have been disposed of by order dated 10.5.1988 passed by Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad. 3. The main contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had raised only two points in the objections one, that the sales proclamation which was issued, was defective as date of its issue was not mentioned and seal of the authority had not been affixed over it and also because full particulars had not been given nor required under the law for the mala proclamation. On this point, it may be noted that the learned Commissioner has made no discussion, nor any finding has been recorded except that after mentioning the objection of the petitioner, he had also made a mention of a case cited on behalf of the petitioner. He failed to record any finding as to whether the mala proclamation was valid or invalid in view of the law laid down in the case cited before him. The other point, which appears to have been pressed before opposite party No. 2, was that the petitioner was not served. In this connection also, it is to be found that the learned Commissioner has only enumerated the submission made by the counsel for the other side in para 5 of the order. But on this point also no finding has been accorded after perusal of record. 4. In this connection also, it is to be found that the learned Commissioner has only enumerated the submission made by the counsel for the other side in para 5 of the order. But on this point also no finding has been accorded after perusal of record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit today mentioning therein that in pursuance of an order dated 22.4.1989 passed by. this court, the whole amount due against him has been deposited by him. 5. Since it is found that the opposite party No. 2 failed to record any finding on any of the grounds raised by the petitioner, the order is not sustainable. As a matter of fact, he failed to exercise the jurisdiction in him. Merely stating the cases of respective parties is not enough. In para 6 of the order, opposite party No. 2 has only said that he found no good reason to interfere in the auction sale. The matter will have to be reconsidered by opposite party No. 2. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 10.5.1988 passed by opposite party No. 2 contained in Annexure to the writ petition petition is set aside. The case is remanded to opposite party No. 2 to consider the objections of the petitioner afresh and record a finding after ascertaining the facts on the record in context with the grounds raised. The deposit made by the petitioner in pursuance order of this Court shall remain in deposit and that factor may be taken into account. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 5 submits that since a considerable amount has been deposited by opposite party No. 5, it shall remain blocked for a long time therefore, the opposite party No. 2 be directed to dispose of the matter merely. The prayer made is reasonable and the opposite party No. shall expedite the hearing of the matter and dispose of the objections as merely as possible. 8. There would be no order as to costs. Until final disposal of the objection by opposite party No. 2, the petitioner shall remain in possession and sale certificate, if not already issued, shall not be issued.