JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19th May, 2005 (Annex.3) by which the auction proceedings dated 21st March, 2005 in respect of the sale of immovable property situated at A-53, Sector-80 Phase II, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar for a sum Rs. 20,70,000/- in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar and he has been directed to take refund of the amount deposited by him. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that one Ku. Anu Sharma, respondent No. 5 could not make the payment of the outstanding dues of the electricity department. The said amount was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and recovery certificate had been issued against the said respondent No. 5 Ku. Anu Sharma. The advertisement was made for auction of the aforesaid immovable property of Ku. Anu Sharma, respondent No. 5. The petitioner also participated in the auction held on 21st March, 2005 after completing the terms and conditions for participation in the auction. Being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 20,70,000/- for the entire plot, measuring 450 Square Meters, he was asked to deposit 1/4th amount of the auction bid on the same day. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,17,500/- on the same day. The impugned order was passed on 19th May, 2005 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Respondent No. 2 cancelling the auction proceedings without giving any reason therein and a direction was also issued to the petitioner to take refund of the amount so deposited by him. Hence this writ petition. 3. The Court, after noticing various steps which had been taken for sale of the immovable property for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs and odd qua alleged recovery of the electricity dues of Rs. 1,03,290/- (Rupees One Lac Three thousand Two Hundred Ninety Only) as well as in view of the other facts on record, required the Standing Counsel to produce the original record and to explain as to under what circumstances, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had the competence to cancel the auction. 1,03,290/- (Rupees One Lac Three thousand Two Hundred Ninety Only) as well as in view of the other facts on record, required the Standing Counsel to produce the original record and to explain as to under what circumstances, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had the competence to cancel the auction. The records were accordingly produced before this Court and a counter affidavit was filed by the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadri wherein it has been stated that the powers of the Collector has been conferred upon the Sub Divisional Officers under a notification dated 5th December, 1968 in exercise of powers under Section 3 (2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). It has further been mentioned that after the cancellation was made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in exercise of vested power on 24th May, 2005, the petitioner made an application before the District Magistrate on Janta Divas on which instructions were issued to the Additional District Magistrate Ghaziabad to enquire into the matter. The Additional District Magistrate thereafter called for the relevant files and prepared a report which was sent to the District Magistrate vide letter dated 6.5.2005. The report specifically mentioned that the auction was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Thereafter, a second report was submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 13th May, 2005 before the District Magistrate. 4. On 25th July, 2007, when the matter was taken for consideration again, Ku. Anu Sharma, the respondent No. 5 filed an affidavit wherein she has stated that the plot in question was allotted to her and that she had no knowledge about the auction proceedings. The affidavit filed by her disclosed her age as 27 years which was sworn on 18th July, 2007. The Court, therefore, expressed doubts about the fact as to whether she was major on the date the application for allotment of plot was made by her in 1998. At this stage, the NOIDA authorities were directed to produce the original records qua the allotment of plot in favour of Ku. Anu Sharma, the respondent No. 5. On examination of original records by this Court on 22.8.2007, it was deciphered that an application was made by Ku. Anu Sharma, respondent No. 5 for allotment of 500 sq. meters for establishment of Jewellery Sculpture and Handicraft Manufacturing Industry with an investment of more than Rs. 89 lacs. Anu Sharma, the respondent No. 5. On examination of original records by this Court on 22.8.2007, it was deciphered that an application was made by Ku. Anu Sharma, respondent No. 5 for allotment of 500 sq. meters for establishment of Jewellery Sculpture and Handicraft Manufacturing Industry with an investment of more than Rs. 89 lacs. In the said application, she had shown herself to be 27 years of age, which she had shown in her affidavit dated 18.7.2007. The allotment was made in her favour vide order dated 30th May, 1998. Under the terms and conditions of the lease so granted, the constructions were required to be made and the unit was to become operational within a period of two years of the said allotment. However, the facts reveal that as on 28th February, 2006, a sum of Rs. 2,32,893/- was outstanding and that the industry was not established what to talk of making it operational in consonance of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Various other facts disputing the liability of the electricity dues to the tune of Rs. 1,03,290/- which is said to be the money due to the petitioner for the plot so put to auction, was also raised. It was further stated that the petitioner was not informed of the recovery proceedings or of the auction which had taken place. However, on the said date, Shri Amit Krishan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 made a statement that the affidavit filed by Ku. Anu Sharma was under the pressure of Shri Yogendra Singh Yadav, Sub Divisional Magistrate, the respondent No. 2. The Court was also surprised to notice that although the auction took place on 21.3.2005, the allottee Ku. Anu Sharma has taken more than two years to approach this Court by way of an affidavit. In these set of circumstances, the Court required that an affidavit be filed by some responsible officer of the NOIDA categorically disclosing as to why till date, the NOIDA authorities could not initiate proceedings for cancellation of allotment or intervene in the auction proceedings and why the balance amount of the outstanding dues against the respondent No. 5 has not been recovered and as to whether allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 was genuine. 5. Large number of affidavits have been filed since then in the present proceedings. 5. Large number of affidavits have been filed since then in the present proceedings. However, from the records, following facts emerge : (a) Notices in respect of recovery proceeding etc. were sent to the original allottee Ku. Anu Sharma at the factory premises and at every point of time, it was reported by the Process Server that nobody was available and, therefore, the notice was affixed on the Gate. Similarly, there is no order referable to Rule 281 (2-A) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the ‘Rules 1952’), determining the value of the property which was to be put to auction. (b) No advertisement has been enclosed along with the records of the present proceedings qua the auction in question. 6. Today, a photostat copy of a newspaper, namely, Dainik Jagaran, dated 20th March, 2005 published from New Delhi, was produced before us by the Counsel for the petitioner, which discloses that the plot in question was to be put to public auction on 21.3.2005, i.e. within 24 hours of the advertisement. The conditions for participation in the auction were stated to be ascertained from the office of the Collector. However, it is stated that the persons who could deposit Rs. 1 lac alone was permitted to participate in the auction proceedings and on what basis this sum of Rs. 1 lac is calculated has not been disclosed. In the auction held on 21st March, 2005, petitioner is stated to have offered the highest bid of Rs. 20 lacs and odd, however, there is a note requiring the subordinate revenue authorities to submit a report with regard to the valuation of the property which has been so auctioned. The report so submitted records that the value of the property, as per circle rate, is Rs. 10 lacs while the market value is approximately Rs. 19 lacs. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Magistrate proceeded to cancel the bid offered by the petitioner. On record is another report which mentions that the circle rate of Rs. 4,000 per sq. meter which had been applied for the purposes of evaluating the property in question earlier was incorrect, however, as a matter of fact, the market value of the property is more than Rs. 6,000/- per sq. meter. 7. On record is another report which mentions that the circle rate of Rs. 4,000 per sq. meter which had been applied for the purposes of evaluating the property in question earlier was incorrect, however, as a matter of fact, the market value of the property is more than Rs. 6,000/- per sq. meter. 7. In the aforesaid factual background, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there was absolutely no material with the Sub Divisional Magistrate to come to the conclusion that the price fetched in the auction was not adequate and further in absence of any objections having been filed under Rule 285-I of the Rules 1952, the auction in favour of the petitioner was liable to be confirmed in view of the provisions contained under Rule 285-K. 8. The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioner has been opposed on behalf of Ku. Anu Sharma; NOIDA authorities as well as the State respondents. On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that the procedure prescribed for sale of an immovable property under Rules 281 to 284 of the Rules 1952 has not been followed. There has been no assessment of the value of the property as well as there has been no consideration of the issue as to whether it was necessary to put such a huge property to auction for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1 lac and odd said to be electricity dues at the hands of the Collector. 9. Shri C.L. Pandey, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 has contended that the entire auction is farce and has taken place without following the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the ‘Act 1958’). He submits that under the said Act, a notice of demand under Section 3 has to be issued to the consumer raising the demand of the money due and 30 days’ time is to be provided for making the payment of the dues so raised. It is only after the consumer fails to deposit the money in terms of the notice issued under Section 3 and after expiry of 30 days that proceedings for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue under Section 5 of the said Act can be resorted to. It is only after the consumer fails to deposit the money in terms of the notice issued under Section 3 and after expiry of 30 days that proceedings for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue under Section 5 of the said Act can be resorted to. He contends that neither the Government Electrical Undertaking referable to the Act 1958 has been made party nor there are sufficient pleadings in the present petition so as to justify that the procedure prescribed under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the said Act had been followed. The records of the present writ petition is completely silent in respect of the present procedure having been so followed. On behalf of Ku. Anu Sharma, it has been contended that Ku. Anu Sharma, the respondent No. 5 had no information of the electricity dues or her property being sold for recovery of the same. 10. Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the NOIDA has further contended before us that admittedly, Ku. Anu Sharma has chosen not to appear before this Court despite notices having been issued in the year 2005. However, on a particular day, a statement was made by her Counsel that the counter affidavit filed by her in the present proceedings was at the behest of the Sub Divisional Magistrate himself who had cancelled the auction. It has further been submitted that although the respondent No. 5 had assured to establish an industry with an investment of nearly Rs. 89 lacs, however, she failed to construct the industry in the last more than 10 years. She could not made the industry operational contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease deed within the time specified and has further failed to deposit the amount of premium due in its entirety. He, therefore, submits that there is a bona fide doubt as to whether Ku. Anu Sharma has been set up as a benami applicant by some other person with ulterior motive and liberty be granted to the NOIDA to examine the facts as well as for other action warranted under the law. 11. After hearing Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the present writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that an immovable property worth more than Rs. 11. After hearing Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the present writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that an immovable property worth more than Rs. 20 lacs, according to own case of the petitioner, could not have been put to auction without its valuation having been done as required under Rule 281 (2-A) and even otherwise for recovery of a meagre sum of Rs. 1,03,290, it was not necessary to auction property worth Rs. 20 lacs even if the amount was legally to be recovered from the consumer. 12. We may also notice the contention raised by Shri C.L. Pandey, Senior Advocate with regard to the non-compliance of the statutory provision of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act 1958. No electrical dues qua Government Electrical Undertaking can be recovered as arrears of land revenue unless a notice under Section 3 of the said Act has been issued. The present writ petition as well as records produced before us do not demonstrate that the notice as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act 1958 was ever issued to the petitioner. In the absence of such material being available on record, it is difficult for the Court to examine as to whether the procedure followed for recovery of the electricity dues, as arrears of land revenue, is in accordance with law. The petitioner has made the position worst by not impleading the U.P. Power Corporation/Government Electrical Undertaking as a party to the present writ petition, the dues whereof are stated to have been recovered by auction of the property in question. Thus, the petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. Non-joinder of necessary party is always fatal in view of the principle enshrined in the proviso to Order 1 of Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The advertisement is stated to have been published on 20th March, 2005 while the property was auctioned on the very next date, i.e. 21st March, 2005. The records of the present case further establish that the market value of the property in question as per the subsequent report was more than Rs. 6,000/- per sq. meter while the earlier report suggested that the market value of the property was Rs. 4,000/- per sq. meter only. The records of the present case further establish that the market value of the property in question as per the subsequent report was more than Rs. 6,000/- per sq. meter while the earlier report suggested that the market value of the property was Rs. 4,000/- per sq. meter only. It is well settled that the highest bidder does not acquire any right or title or interest over the property merely because he has offered the highest bid. The Collector has the jurisdiction to accept the bid or to reject it. The Collector while exercising jurisdiction under Rule 285-A of the Rules 1952 is not required to act with close eyes and vacant mind. He has to form an opinion whether the highest bid offered is adequate or not before accepting the bid. The applicability of Rule 285-H and I would arise only after the bid is offered by the Auctioning Authority. The Collector would exercise the power under Rule 285-J to confirm the sale and to pass such appropriate order which he may deem fit and proper considering the facts of the case. 13. We may clarify that the inherent power of the Auctioning Authority to conduct the sale of immovable property, to accept the bid or to reject the same has nothing to do with the power exercisable by him regarding confirmation of the sale envisaged under Rule 285-J nor it can be governed or regulated by the provisions of the said Rule. The Collector, therefore, independent of Rule 285-J of the Rules 1952, has inherent power either to accept or reject the highest bid offered in the auction of immovable property. Reference in that regard may be had to the judgment of this Court in Raghunandan Prasad v. Board of Revenue, 1987 RD 380. 14. In A. Narriya v. M. Subbarao, AIR 1990 SC 219, the Apex Court deprecated the practice/tendency to blindfoldly selling the entire property without assessing the necessity of doing so. A Division Bench of this Court in Kewla Prasad v. Bank of Baroda, (2006) 3 AWC 2976, categorically held that Authority is bound to consider necessity of putting entire property to auction and without determining such an issue auction for whole of the property cannot be held. 15. In S. Mariyappa (Dead) by LRs. A Division Bench of this Court in Kewla Prasad v. Bank of Baroda, (2006) 3 AWC 2976, categorically held that Authority is bound to consider necessity of putting entire property to auction and without determining such an issue auction for whole of the property cannot be held. 15. In S. Mariyappa (Dead) by LRs. and others v. Siddappa and another, (2005) 10 SCC 235 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is duty of the Executing Court to consider whether sale of only a part of the property would be sufficient to meet the decretal amount and in case such a decision is not taken, the sale deserves to be set aside and in such circumstances it may be held that it is a case of execution. While deciding the said case, reference has been made to earlier judgments in Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 693; Mangal Prasad v. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 31; and in Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma, AIR 1977 SC 1789 . 16. The estimate of the value of the property is a material fact to enable the purchaser to know its value. It must be verified as accurately and fairly as possible so that the intending bidders are not misled or to prevent them from offering inadequate price or to enable them to make a decision in offering adequate price. (Vide Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh, (1994) 1 SCC 131 ; and in S.S. Dayananda v. K.S. Nagesh Rao and others, (1997) 4 SCC 451 ). 17. A similar view has been reiterated in Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar and others, (2004) 7 SCC 151 . 18. In Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2004 SC 4299 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of fixing the reserve price and explain that reserve price limits the authorities of the auctioneer. The concept of the reserve price is not synonymous with valuation of the property. These two terms operate in different spheres. An invitation to tender is not an offer. It is an attempt to ascertain whether an offer can be obtained with a margin. 19. The concept of the reserve price is not synonymous with valuation of the property. These two terms operate in different spheres. An invitation to tender is not an offer. It is an attempt to ascertain whether an offer can be obtained with a margin. 19. In an auction sale, it is the duty of the authority to fix the reserve price so that the sale may be for proper consideration as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Chohan and another v. State Bank of Patiala, (1997) 10 SCC 65 . 20. In Seth Kashi Ram Chemical (India) v. State of Haryana and others, 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 215, the Apex Court held that highest bidder in an auction does not acquire any right at the most he can claim the refund of the deposit made by him. 21. A similar view has been reiterated in State of Orissa and others v. Harinarayan Jaiswal and others, AIR 1972 SC 1816 . 22. In the instant case, no decision had ever been taken by the Collector as to whether for recovery of petty amount of Rs. 1,03,290/- only, entire property worth more than Rs. 20 lacs could be put to auction. 23. In the totality of the circumstances noticed hereinabove, we are satisfied that since the Collector has refused to accept the bid offered by the petitioner, although highest, it cannot be said that any material irregularity has been committed by him which may warrant any interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, find no good reason to interfere in the present writ proceedings. There is no pleading or material on record to substantiate that there had been any proper notice inviting the bidders giving a reasonable period. Thus, procedure which ought to have been followed was given a complete go-bye. In such a fact-situation, the alleged auction itself cannot be held to have been conducted in accordance with law. The alleged auction was not only bad but illegal from its inception and petitioner cannot take any benefit thereof. If an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. In such a fact-situation, the alleged auction itself cannot be held to have been conducted in accordance with law. The alleged auction was not only bad but illegal from its inception and petitioner cannot take any benefit thereof. If an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam and others, (1998) 3 SCC 381 ; Satchidananda Mishra v. State of Orissa and others, 2004 AIR SCW 5229; and Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530 ). 24. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran and others, (2006) 1 SCC 228 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. 25. The Collector has already directed for refund of the money deposited by the petitioner and for the purpose, it is provided that such refund must take place within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the District Collector. 26. So far as the papers pertaining to the allotment of plot in favour of Ku. Anu Sharma, the respondent No. 5 by NOIDA authority is concerned, no direction is required to be issued inasmuch as the NOIDA has ample jurisdiction to take action as may be warranted under the law in case the terms of the lease deed have been violated or there is a doubt with regard to the bona fides of the person making application and in whose favour such allotment has been made. The NOIDA is, therefore, at liberty to examine its original record and to satisfy itself as to whether the application made by the respondent No. 5 was a bona fide application and was not a benami transaction and to ascertain as to whether she had the financial capability of investing a sum of Rs. 89 lacs as proposed by her in her application in the year 1998. NOIDA is also at liberty to examine as to whether there is a deliberate violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed and if so, the action permissible under the law may be taken. 27. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. ————