JUDGMENT – This appeal, preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-072002, passed by learned District Judge, Uttarkashi, in Civil Suit No. 51 of 1998. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that plaintiff-respondent, Kedar Singh Rawat instituted a suit before the trial court on 24-11-1998 for declaration that he is owner of the plot No. 2097 and injunction directing the appellants-defendants to deliver the possession of the land in suit, after executing deed in respect thereof as a freehold land. According to the allegations contained in the plaint, the State (appellant) issued a memorandum/notice for holding public auction on 28-02-1998 in respect of certain properties which included plot No. 2097, measuring 10 sq. mts., in the town area of uttarkashi. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that he authorized Sri Prakash Butola, as his agent, to participate in the auction on his behalf. The bid of the plaintiff-respondent at Rs. 76,000/-, being highest was accepted in respect of aforesaid plot. According to the terms of the auction, one-fourth of the said amount was immediately deposited and rest three-fourth amount was deposited in terms of the auction on 03-04-1998 in the Government treasury. As per the terms of the auction the bid of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted by the Collector and the defendants-appellants were bound to transfer possession of disputed land as a freehold land to the plaintiff-respondent. However, on 24-10-1998, the District Magistrate/Collector, Uttarkashi cancelled the auction on the ground that on enquiry it was found that said land of plot No. 2097 was in the possession of Agriculture Department. Vide its said order, the Collector further directed that the money deposited on behalf of the plaintiff, be refunded to him. It is this order which gave cause of action to the plaintiff, who instituted a suit for declaration of his right and for injunction directing the defendants to deliver possession of the plot in question. 3. Defendants-appellants filed their written statement before the trial court admitting that on 28-02-1998 auction took place and in respect of plot No . 2097, measuring 10 sq. mts., and that Prakash Butola made a .highest bid. It is also admitted that one-fourth of the amount of bid, that is Rs. 76,000/4 = Rs. 19,000/-, were deposited then and there at the time of the auction. 2097, measuring 10 sq. mts., and that Prakash Butola made a .highest bid. It is also admitted that one-fourth of the amount of bid, that is Rs. 76,000/4 = Rs. 19,000/-, were deposited then and there at the time of the auction. It is also not disputed, rather admitted, that remaining amount was also deposited on behalf of the plaintiff in terms of the auction. However, the suit was contested on the ground that the land is in possession of the Agriculture Department and the auction was cancelled in the public interest. 4. Learned trial court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed following issues: 1. Whether, cancellation of the sale by auction held on 28-02- 1998, was against the law, if so, its effect ? 2. Whether, as alleged in para 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of ownership and possession over the plot No. 2097? 3. Whether, plaintiff Kedar Singh Rawat authorized Sri Prakash Butola to make bid on his behalf, if so, whether Prakash Butola submitted authority letter at the time of the auction, if further so, whether plaintiff has a right to institute the suit for ownership and possession in respect of the disputed property? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ? 5. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing them, learned trial court found that the cancellation of the sale by auction held on 28-02-1998, was illegal on the part of the Collector. Also, it further held that plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of ownership and also of possession in respect of plot No. 2097. It further held that Prakash Butola was the authorized agent on behalf of the plaintiff to participate in the auction under duly authority letter. Accordingly, suit was decreed, aggrieved by which, this appeal has been filed by the defendants. 6. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. Admittedly land of plot No. 2097, measuring 10 Sg. mts. is the land which was owned by the State. It is also admitted between the parties that the State on its own motion held public auction on 28-02-1998 in respect of certain properties including the aforesaid plot. for its sale. It is also not disputed that Rs. 7. Admittedly land of plot No. 2097, measuring 10 Sg. mts. is the land which was owned by the State. It is also admitted between the parties that the State on its own motion held public auction on 28-02-1998 in respect of certain properties including the aforesaid plot. for its sale. It is also not disputed that Rs. 76.000/- was the highest bid in respect of said plot of land, which was made by Sri Prakash Butola. P.W.1, Kedar Singh Rawat, plaintiff has stated on oath before the trial court that Prakash Butola was agent to participate in the auction on his behalf. The authority letter of the plaintiff in favour of Prakash Butola was filed before the trial court by none other than the defendants themselves (Ext. 8, paper No. 35-A filed before the trial court), which corroborated the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff had authorized Prakash Butola to participate in the auction on his behalf with said authority letter. As such, I am in full agreement with the finding of the learned trial court that Prakash Butola was authorized agent of the plaintiff, who produced necessary authority letter at the time of the auction. Apart from this, from the side of the appellant-defendant No.1, who conducted the auction, no one turned up to rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff on this point. D.W.1, Dr. S.K. Upadhyaya, Agricultural Officer, is not witness of the auction. 8. I asked learned Standing Counsel to show, if as per the terms of the auction, it was open for the Collector to cancel the sale by auction or if there is any provision of law which empowers the Collector to cancel such sale by auction. Learned Standing Counsel failed to show either of the two. In the auction, at the instance of the State, offer was made by the plaintiff-respondent, who was the highest bidder, and deposited in terms of auction one-fourth amount on the very day and remaining three-fourth within the time allowed as per the terms of the auction. It is clear from the evidence on record that remaining three-fourth amount was deposited on 03-04-1998 in the Government treasury through the treasury challan. As such after plaintiff's offer which was accepted by defendants, the contract was complete. It is clear from the evidence on record that remaining three-fourth amount was deposited on 03-04-1998 in the Government treasury through the treasury challan. As such after plaintiff's offer which was accepted by defendants, the contract was complete. The impugned order of the Collector passed on 2410-1998 shows that the sale by auction is being cancelled because there is possession of the Agriculture Department over the plot of land and the land is of public utility. Every inch of the land belonging to the State is held or possessed by some of its department. Agriculture Department is not exception to it. As such, on such a ground unless the law empowers the Collector to do so, he cannot cancel the sale In the manner It is done. Therefore, this Court is again in full agreement with the trial court on Its finding on Issue No. l. 9. Learned Standing Counsel drew attention of this Court to the memorandum/notice issued on 1" February, 1998 for holding the sale by auction on 28-02-1998. Said notice is Ext. 1, paper No. 28-A filed before the trial court. At the end of this notice, It has been mentioned that right to accept or not to accept the highest bid vests In the Committee chaired by the Collector. Learned Standing Counsel relying on said provision in the notice argued that the Collector was empowered to cancel the sale by auction. In the opinion of this Court, the submission of learned Standing Counsel is misconceived, for the reason that paper No. 30-A, which Is the memo of the auction shows that after the auction was over, it was signed not only by the members of the auction Committee but also by the Collector himself. The said memo of auction discloses that the members of the Committee recommended that the highest bid of Rs. 76,000/- be accepted. The members of Committee Included Executive Officer, Nagar Pallka, Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Chief Development Officer, Incharge Collector and on their recommendation bid was accepted by the Collector himself. As such, the acceptance of bid for the sale by auction in favour of the plaintiff was already over, that is why by the. Impugned order dated 24-10-1998, the sale by auction was cancelled there is no mention that the offer is not being accepted. As such, the acceptance of bid for the sale by auction in favour of the plaintiff was already over, that is why by the. Impugned order dated 24-10-1998, the sale by auction was cancelled there is no mention that the offer is not being accepted. Otherwise also, It is only after the bid was accepted, the plaintiff deposited three-fourth of the amount of bid on 03-04-1998 in terms of the auction. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and after perusing the entire evidence on record, this Court feels that the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. However, the plaintiff-respondent appears to have paid court fee only in respect of declaration and injunction while he has also sought possession of plot under the garb of the mandatory injunction. In the circumstances, the decree passed by the learned trial court would be executed for possession of land, only if the plaintiff respondent pays the court fee for the relief of possession also. With these observations the appeal is dismissed. However, costs of appeal easy.