JUDGMENT A.N. Saigal, I.A.S. Chairman. - I have heard the parties and gone through the record of the case. 2. This is a revision petition against the order of Sri B.B. Sinha, learned Commissioner, Kanpur Division, dated 29-3-1990 man objection against sale of house No. 84/59, Jarib ki Chowki, Kanpur. The sale took place on 18-12-1989. The objection has been allowed on the following grounds : (i) The final date of the sale was not intimated to the defaulter. This was fixed for 18-12-1989. (ii) The proclamation was issued on 2-12-1989 and 30 days did not lapse. (iii) The area and boundaries of the property had not been described. As a result of these short-comings, the due price of the property was not obtained. The learned Commissioner Delt that these facts were not brought to his notice earlier and, therefore, the confirmation of the sale was obtained from him on the basis of incomplete information as the area of the land had not been indicated. He has, therefore, set aside the auction sale. 3. The revision petition has been moved on the ground that the property is located in a low-lying area and that it has several small tenants and, therefore, it could not be expected to fetch a reasonable value. It has also been stated that Sri Singhania moved an application on 11-5-1989, saying that auction may be stayed for one month because the amount said to be payable was not payable by him and the matter had to be clarified from the Jal Sansthan authorities. The auction was fixed on 16-5-1989. It actually took place on 18-12-1989. It has been argued on behalf of the opposite parties that it is clear that Sri Singhania was aware of the proposed auction on 16-5-1989 and it was for him to appear and it was not necessary to inform him and also that there are several rulings that fresh proclamation is not necessary if the dates are extended. Wide publicity had been given and it had been duly done and in view of this having been duly done 30 days notice as not necessary on each occasion. There is force in this argument for fresh proclamation is not needed and that Sri Singhania was aware of the proceedings, but the learned Commissioners confirmation had been obtained on the basis of incomplete information. There is force in this argument for fresh proclamation is not needed and that Sri Singhania was aware of the proceedings, but the learned Commissioners confirmation had been obtained on the basis of incomplete information. Total area of the land on which the property was located should have been mentioned in the proclamation, which had not been given. Estimated value of the property should also have been given. In the absence of any information regarding total area of the property the learned Commissioner failed to know the value of the Property sold. He confirmed the sale accordingly on account of the fact that the amount has been recovered. 4. It is also true that when a property is said in distressed circumstances for recovery of arrears of land revenue it cannot fetch its normal price, but the authorities conducting the sale and confirming the sale must satisfy that the price is reasonable. This means that not only is the amount to be recovered, it has also to be seen that no loss is caused to the owner of the property. It is true that in the distressed circumstances due price of the property is not obtained, but l/4th of the normal value of the property should be reasonable. In the present case, the property was auctioned on 18-12-1989 for Rs. 1,90,000/- and the sale was confirmed on 31-1-1990. The principle applied in this case will be the same as enunciated in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 2037 Navlakha and Sons v. Ramanya Das, in which their Lordships have been pleased to observe that Before confirmation Court must satisfy itself that price fetched is reasonable - Sale confirmed without being so satisfied - Confirmation is not proper exercise of jurisdiction (Civil Procedure Code 1908 Order XXI Rule 92). The matter pertained to Navlakha and Sons v. Ramanya Das, in which their Lordships have been pleased to observe that 'Before confirmation Court must satisfy itself that price fetched is reasonable - Sale confirmed without being so satisfied - Confirmation is not proper exercise of jurisdiction (Civil Procedure Code 1908 Order XXI Rule 92). The matter pertained to Navlakha & Sons v. Ramanya Das and others, in Civil Appeals Nos. 1085 and 1086 of 1967 decided on 27-10-1969. 5. The matter pertained to Navlakha & Sons v. Ramanya Das and others, in Civil Appeals Nos. 1085 and 1086 of 1967 decided on 27-10-1969. 5. It is also seen from the facts of the present case that when Sri O.P. Singhania moved an application on 11-5-1989 that dues were not recoverable from him and subsequently when the Jal Sansthan Authorities were consulted and it was found that recovery was due from him he should at least have been informed that his application had been rejected. He had made an offer for payment of Rs. 51,000/- which could have cleared all the arrears. It is true that the proper course of action on his part would have been to appear before the Tahsildar but in view of his application being pending his action was justified. 6. The rate approved by the Collector for sale of land in the area is Rs. 989/- per sqr. metre and the area of the disputed property is more than 10000 sqr. metres. Thus, the value of the land only, as per the rate approved by the Collector, even if the buildings are not taken into consideration, comes to Rs. 98,90,000/-. As I have observed, the sale price of the property must have some relationship to the value of the property. Even if we accept the argument of the auction purchase that the land was low-lying and it was a slum area and many small tenants are fitting and he has taken pains to remove them involving considerable expenses, the market rate approved by the Collector even if reduced to th makes the value of the land plus buildings Rs. 30,00,000/-. The property has been sold for less than 2 lacs which is less than 1/15th of the price. Therefore, the price is entirely inadequate. Consequently, it seems that the learned Commissioner has rightly set aside the auction in view of the observations enumerated above. 7. However, the question arises that in view of the late filing of the objections, whether this order interferes with the right created in favour of the auction-purchaser as a result of the confirmation of the sale. Every auction purchaser takes a risk and knows that the auction is likely to be set aside not only by the Commissioner but also by the Civil Court. Every auction purchaser takes a risk and knows that the auction is likely to be set aside not only by the Commissioner but also by the Civil Court. The auction-purchaser was fully aware that he had purchased the property at a throw-away price and on this count alone its validity can be challenged. 8. Also, the question arises whether the Commissioner has power to reopen the sale confirmed by him. In view of the circumstances mentioned above and in view of the principle enunciated in 1990 R.D. page 279 (Smt. Jagrani Prakash Narain v. State of U.P., and 1990 R.D. page 291, Ram Swaroop v. Board of Revenue, High Court, it has been held that Commissioner while hearing objections on sale works as a court. If it came to his notice that he had confirmed the sale on the basis of incomplete information or faulty notice or on the ground that notice to the parties was inadequate, he is fully empowered to review his own order after hearing the parties because he functions as a court. In the present case, while proclamation cannot be said to be defective for want of notice to Sri Singhania, the subsequent in taken formation or action on his application led the Commissioner to review his order and he has set aside the sale on the ground that the sale was made for a throwaway price. I agree with order of the learned Commissioner regarding unreasonableness of the price paid by the auction-purchaser and dismiss the revision petition. It is hereby directed that the amount deposited by the auction-purchaser be refunded to him along with interest, as per rules, and the property be out to auction again. The boundaries should be already mentioned. The area of the property should be desired. Details of constructions on it should also be mentioned and the approximate market price of the property should be mentioned and the minimum bid to be accepted should also be specified. It would be open to the present auction-purchaser to participate in the bid.