JUDGMENT A.N. Segal, Chairman. - I have heard the learned counsel, for the parties, and gone through the record of the case. 2. It is admitted that in this matter neither one-fourth of the sale proceeds was deposited at the fall of the hammer nor three-fourth of the amount was deposited within 15 days. The sale is, therefore, a nullity and void ab initio. It is the settled law on the subject. Rules 285-D and 255-E of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules indicates the manner in which the bid money should be deposited. 3. The learned D.G.C. (R) appearing on behalf of the State raised an objection that only the Commissioner could hear the case under Rule 285-I of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules of the procedure therein is self-contained. Section 218 and 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act give power to the Commissioner and the Board to call for the record of the cases. After considering the arguments of the learned D.G.C. (R), I do not think that the learned Additional Commissioner erred in making the reference. The Board has jurisdiction to call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate court and to quash any action which it considers to be unlawful. 4. The view has now been taken both by the Board (Smt. Jagrani/Prakash Chandra v. State) 1990 R.D. page 279 and the Hon'ble High Court Ram Swaroop v. Board of Revenue) 1990 R.D. page 291 that the objection in sale proceedings under Rule 285-1 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules is judicial proceeding. In Jodha v. Raja Ram, Allahabad Vidhi Nirnaya 1983 Page 19 Mr. Maheshwar Prasad, the then Chairman, took the view that in proceedings which are void due to any material irregularity, the proceedings should be quashed as they are legal nullity. He held that the Board has powers to quash any proceedings which have no legal existence. In the present case, the sale is a nullity and deserves to be quashed. Therefore, after going into the matter and of the Additional Commissioner's competence to make the reference, I hold that the sale is void and, therefore, I quash it. The revision petition is allowed accordingly. 5. If the revisionists deposit the entire amount within 90 days from today, the property will be released from attachment. 6. Therefore, after going into the matter and of the Additional Commissioner's competence to make the reference, I hold that the sale is void and, therefore, I quash it. The revision petition is allowed accordingly. 5. If the revisionists deposit the entire amount within 90 days from today, the property will be released from attachment. 6. This order will also govern reference No. 3 of 1989-90/Kanpur Nagar.