JUDGMENT [Per : Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J.] By this common judgment, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of together. 2. In Writ Petition No. 15 of 2009 (M/B), filed by V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Which is an Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the following reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner : “i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records and setting aside the orders dt. 10.7.2007 and 12.7.2007 (Annexure Nos. 18 and 19 to this writ petition), passed by Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri Garhwal, Camp at Dehradun-respondent no. 1 and Additional Tehsildar, Sadar, Dehradun-respondent No. 4, in the office of Tehsildar (Sadar), Dehradun, respectively. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the auction notice dt. 20.7.2007 (Annexure No. 20 to this writ petition), issued by Additional Tehsildar, Sadar, Dehradun-respondent no. 4. iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent authorities to confirm the auction bid of petitioner, made on 7.3.2007. iv. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent authorities to execute the sale deed of property in question in favour of petitioner and also hand over the vacant possession of property in question to the petitioner. v. pass any other and further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. vi. Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner.” 3. In Amended Writ Petition No. 5 of 2009 (M/B), filed by Nakul Singh, the sole petitioner, the following reliefs have been claimed by him : “i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to sale the property in favour of the petitioner’s nominee as they are ready and willing to pay Rs. 2.27 crore with above 5% and as the application to this effect already moved before District Magistrate. i-a. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.5.2007 passed by Commissioner Garhwal Mandal, Camp at Dehradun (Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition). ii. A further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take steps for further auction of the property in question. iii. i-a. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.5.2007 passed by Commissioner Garhwal Mandal, Camp at Dehradun (Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition). ii. A further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take steps for further auction of the property in question. iii. Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv. Award the cost of petition to the petitioner.” 4. Mayur Chalchitra Utpadan Pradarshan Evam Sahkari Samiti Ltd., 19-B, Ugrasen Road, Dehradun, obtained loan from District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dehradun. Nakul Singh, writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5 of 2009 (M/B), stood as a Guarantor to the repayment of this loan. Nakul Singh, at the relevant time, was the proprietor of M/s Sanyog Enterprises, Dehradun. By way of offering his guarantee to the repayment of the said loan, Nakul Singh mortgaged part of Property No. 19 measuring about 2 Bighas & 11 Biswas situated at New Survey Road (Rai Bahadur Ugrasen Road) Dehradun, as well as the complete portion of the constructed building upon the said piece of land, which is popularly known in Dehradun as ‘Kanak Cinema’. Because the Loanee could not repay the debt or the interest thereupon or any part thereof, an Application under Section 70(1) of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act was filed against the Loanee as well as the Guarantor for adjudication of the disputes, through Arbitration, in the said Application filed under the said Section 70(1) of the aforesaid Act, the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dehradun had claimed an award of money on account of its entitlement arising from namely Nakul Singh. On 3rd June, 2000, in terms of the aforesaid U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, the Arbitrator passed an Award for a sum of Rs. 59,95,210.42/-, which included Rs. 19,72,373.90/- as the Principal Debt and Rs. 40,22,336.52/- as Interest accrued thereupon. In this Award dated 3rd June, 2000 passed by the Arbitrator, in the operative part, stipulation was made where the aforesaid Award amount was to be paid by the respondents in the aforesaid Arbitration proceedings in three equal installments. 59,95,210.42/-, which included Rs. 19,72,373.90/- as the Principal Debt and Rs. 40,22,336.52/- as Interest accrued thereupon. In this Award dated 3rd June, 2000 passed by the Arbitrator, in the operative part, stipulation was made where the aforesaid Award amount was to be paid by the respondents in the aforesaid Arbitration proceedings in three equal installments. The first installment was to be paid by the respondents within two months from the date of the passing of the Award, the second installment five months thereafter and the third eight months thereafter. The Award also stipulated that in the event of any default being committed, the respondents were liable to pay Compound Interest upon the Award amount from the date of the filing of the Arbitration proceedings. 5. Because the liability to pay upon the respondents was joint and several and since the Loanee Mayur Chalchitra Utpadan Pradarshan Evam Vitran Sahkari Samiti Ltd. failed to pay the Award amount, action was initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehradun at the instance of the Bank on 17th October, 2003 for the recovery of the aforesaid awarded amount in terms of Section 92(a) of Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, this Act having in the meanwhile been enacted and replaced U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Before, however, the recovery proceedings, culminating ultimately in the attachment and sale of the mortgaged property, could be taken to their logical conclusion and the amount in question recovered either from the Loanee or the Guarantor, two writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2003 (M/B) and Writ Petition (Lodge) No. 432 of 2003 (M/B) were filed by Nakul Singh, Guarantor, and Mayur Chalchitra Utpadan Pradarshan Evam Vitran Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Loanee, in this Court challenging and assailing the action initiated by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehradun, for the recovery of the Award amount at his instance. Vide Judgment dated 22nd December, 2003, both these Writ Petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. In the concluding part of the Judgment by the Division Bench dismissing the aforesaid two Writ Petitions, at the specific prayer of the writ petitioners, six weeks’ time was allowed to them to comply with the terms of the Award, failing which, as per the Court’s observation, the Revenue was at liberty to proceed in accordance with the terms of the Award. The concluding part of the aforesaid Judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference, which reads, thus : “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the award has already become final and the same cannot be questioned in view of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the validity of the award with regard to the imposition of compound interest. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order dated 17th October 2003, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as auction proceeding initiated by the Tehsildar on the basis of impugned order. In the end, the petitioners have prayed that some time may be allowed to pay the amount. We, therefore, grant six weeks time to comply the terms of the award, failing which the respondents will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the terms, contained in the award dated 3rd June 2000. Subject to the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No orders as to costs.” 6. The Loanee and the Guarantor Nakul Singh having thus failed in their attempt to stall the recovery proceedings, one Ram Gopal Sharma and two other persons claiming to be the licensees of Kanak Cinema filed Writ Petition No. 1205 of 2003 (M/B) for once again stalling the recovery proceedings. This Writ Petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 31st December, 2003. This time, while dismissing the Writ Petition, the Division Bench determined and quantified Rs. 1,67,00,000/- as the minimum price for which the property in question would be sold in auction and having come to such determination with respect to such amount of Rs. 1,67,00,000/-, it gave the option to either Nakul Singh or the aforesaid writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1205 of 2003 (M/B) to pay the aforesaid amount to save the property from being auctioned. It is worth mentioning here that no one, neither the Loanee nor Nakul Singh nor the aforesaid writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1205 of 2003 (M/B) paid the aforesaid amount or any part thereof or made any attempt to liquidate the loan liability in any manner. 7. It is worth mentioning here that no one, neither the Loanee nor Nakul Singh nor the aforesaid writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1205 of 2003 (M/B) paid the aforesaid amount or any part thereof or made any attempt to liquidate the loan liability in any manner. 7. Yet another writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 1354 of 2006 (M/B) was filed by one K.K. Garg and a Review Petition, being Review Application No. 182 of 2006 was filed by Ram Gopal Sharma and others, once again attempting to stall the recovery proceedings as well as the sale of the property in question. Vide Judgment dated 1st November, 2006, the said Writ Petition as well as the said Review Application, both were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. In the concluding part of the Judgment, the Bench observed that it shall be open to the petitioners to make their offer, but directed the Bank Authorities to proceed with the auction in terms of the Award dated 3rd June, 2000. 8. Decks having been cleared by the force of a series of Judgments passed by this Court rejecting, one after another, attempts by Loanee, Guarantor and the people set up by them to stall the recovery proceedings, action was initiated in right earnest for the auction of the property in question and, accordingly, Auction Notice dated 8th September, 2006 was published in the Newspapers fixing 30th October, 2006 as the date of auction of the property in question. In this auction, the highest bid offered was Rs. 1,85,00,000/- by one Pramod Agarwal, which is evident from a perusal of Fard Neelami. 9. This bid amount having been found on the lower side, the auction was cancelled on spot. Second Auction Notice was published on 4th February, 2007 under the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehradun (the order passed on 16th January, 2007) this time fixing 7th March, 2007 (10:00 a.m.) as the date and time of auction of the property in question. In the auction thus held between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on 7th March, 2007, the highest bid/offer of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- was made by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15 of 2009 (M/B) V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. A perusal of Fard Neelami of this auction reveals that District Cooperative Bank had also made an offer/bid of Rs. In the auction thus held between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on 7th March, 2007, the highest bid/offer of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- was made by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15 of 2009 (M/B) V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. A perusal of Fard Neelami of this auction reveals that District Cooperative Bank had also made an offer/bid of Rs. 2,25,00,000/-, but since the offer of the aforesaid writ petitioner was higher than the offer of the Bank, this offer was accepted by the Auction Officer. Accordingly, the writ petitioner V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Deposited Rs. 56,75,000/- vide Receipt No. 086524 dated 7th march, 2007 as 1/4th amount of the auction in terms of the Auction Notice. The remaining 3/4th amount of Rs. 1,70,25,000/- was deposited by the writ petitioner V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vide Receipt No. 086524 on 22nd March, 2007. The Additional Tehsildar, the Auction Officer, recommended that the bid offered by the writ petitioner V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. be accepted. 10. Auction Notice published on 4th February, 2007 contained various stipulations, as well as terms and conditions. Condition No. 4 thereof stipulated that after the auction was held and completed, approval of the Commissioner would be required for confirming the sale of the property in question. The effect of this stipulation was that after the auction was completed, the title in the property would pass on to the purchaser only after the approval was accorded by the Commissioner. 11. Purportedly in terms of Section 173 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (“1901 Act” for short), petitioner Nakul Singh filed an Application before the Commissioner bringing to his notice some alleged irregularities in the auction held on 7th March, 2007. On receipt of this Application, on 6th March, 2007, the Commissioner passed an ex parte ad interim order to the following effect : “The auction shall remain stayed/suspended till further proceeding, after obtaining legal opinion.” This order was passed by the Commissioner on 6th March, 2007, that is a day before the auction was to be held. 12. Even though the parties are at variance about the fact relating to the receipt of the aforesaid stay order in the concerned Department, there is no dispute between the parties that till as late as 11:00 a.m. on 7th March, 2007, this order was not served upon the Auction Officer. 12. Even though the parties are at variance about the fact relating to the receipt of the aforesaid stay order in the concerned Department, there is no dispute between the parties that till as late as 11:00 a.m. on 7th March, 2007, this order was not served upon the Auction Officer. Nothing was brought to our notice by way of production of any document or any record which could show that the order staying/suspending the auction proposed to be held on 7th March, 2007, between 1:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., was actually or in any manner served upon the Auction Officer before the conclusion of the auction proceedings. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the auction could not have been vitiated because of the aforesaid stay order because this order was not served upon or communicated to the Auction Officer before the conclusion of the auction proceedings. 13. Be that as it may, coming back to the aforesaid Application of writ petitioner Nakul Singh, while dealing with the same at an interlocutory stage, on 21st March, 2007, the Commissioner passed an order to the following effect : “Put up on 22nd May, 2007 for further hearing. Till then, any further action pursuance to the auction held on 7th March, 2007 shall remain suspended.” 14. Vide order dated 23rd May, 2007, the Commissioner rejected the aforesaid Application of writ petitioner Nakul Singh. In the concluding part of the order rejecting the said Application, the Commissioner clearly observed that the amount of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- offered by the successful auction purchaser was more than the minimum price fixed by the High Court, that is Rs. 1,67,00,000/-. In the course of the order dated 23rd May, 2007 rejecting the aforesaid Application of writ petitioner Nakul Singh, the Commissioner took note of the directions issued by this Court in the series of Writ Petitions disposed of by this Court and took a clear view that the auction was held as per the directions of this Court and that this Court having fixed Rs. 1,67,00,000/- as the minimum price, the amount of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- offered by the successful auction purchaser was higher than the minimum fixed price. The Commissioner also held writ petitioner Nakul Singh guilty of concealment of material facts. 15. 1,67,00,000/- as the minimum price, the amount of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- offered by the successful auction purchaser was higher than the minimum fixed price. The Commissioner also held writ petitioner Nakul Singh guilty of concealment of material facts. 15. In Writ Petition No. 5 of 2009 (M/B), Nakul Singh, petitioner, has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order dated 23rd May, 2007. 16. Then came a somersault. On 9th July, 2007, District Magistrate, Dehradun, submitted a report to the Commissioner in which, inter alia, he took a view that the amount of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- offered by V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., writ petitioner was on the lower side and, according to him, the prevalent market price of the property in question was higher than Rs. 2,27,00,000/-. According to his opinion the auction was not well publicized, Auction Notices having been published only in two Newspapers, the location of the property was not, sufficiently disseminated and the report of the Government approved Valuer was not taken into consideration. A couple of other observations were also made in the aforesaid report of the District Magistrate. Accordingly in the concluding part of his report the District Magistrate recommended to the Commissioner that the auction proceedings held on 7th March, 2007 be cancelled and the property be put to auction once again. On 10th July, 2007, the Commissioner accepted the aforesaid recommendation of the District Magistrate. 17. On 20th July, 2007, yet another Auction Notice was published, this time fixing 30th August, 2007 as the date of the fresh auction of the property in question. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Filed Writ Petition No. 15 of 2009 (M/B) in this Court. Vide an interim order dated 29th August, 2007, this Court restrained the Authorities concerned from conducting any fresh auction of the property. 18. The short point, which arises for consideration in these cases is whether, once having accepted the auction proceedings vide order dated 23rd May, 2007 rejecting Nakul Singh’s Application, was it open to the Commissioner to go by the recommendation of the District Magistrate and reject the auction held on 7th March, 2007. In other words, once the Commissioner took a conscious decision in the form of a judicial verdict rejecting Nakul Singh’s Application for cancellation of the auction, was it open to the Commissioner, acting upon the recommendation/advice of the District Magistrate, to cancel the auction later on? In other words, once the Commissioner took a conscious decision in the form of a judicial verdict rejecting Nakul Singh’s Application for cancellation of the auction, was it open to the Commissioner, acting upon the recommendation/advice of the District Magistrate, to cancel the auction later on? Let us examine this aspect in legal perspective. 19. Sub-section (a) of Section 92 of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 provides that every Award made under Section 71 of the Act and capable of execution shall be executed in the same manner as for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. (It is the undisputed case of the parties in this Court that the Award of the Arbitrator fixing liability upon the Loanee as well as Guarantor was passed in terms of Section 71 of the Cooperative Societies Act). For ready reference, Section 92 is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus : “92. Execution of certain orders and awards. (It is the undisputed case of the parties in this Court that the Award of the Arbitrator fixing liability upon the Loanee as well as Guarantor was passed in terms of Section 71 of the Cooperative Societies Act). For ready reference, Section 92 is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus : “92. Execution of certain orders and awards. – Every award made under Section 71, and capable of execution in the manner provided below, and every order so capable of execution made by the Registrar under Section 67 or sub-section (2) of Section 68 or under Section 91, or by the liquidator under Section 74 or by an appellate authority on appeal under Section 97 or 98 or on review under Section 99 or as an interlocutory order under Section 100 or a certificate for recovery issued under Section 95-A shall, if not carried out, be executed : (a) in the manner provided by law for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue where the order is for the recovery of money : Provided that an application for the recovery of any such sum is made to the Collector and accompanied by a certificate signed by the Registrar or any person authorized by him in this behalf : Provided further that such application is made within 12 years from the date fixed for payment in the order or award and if no such date is fixed, from the date of the order or award, as the case may be; or (b) by the Registrar or any other person subordinate to him and empowered by him in this behalf, by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property of the person or the co-operative society against whom the order or award has been made; or (c) by the civil court having jurisdiction over the matter as if the order or award were the decree of that court.” 20. There is thus a clear distinction between clause (a) and clause (b) of Section 92. The execution of the Award made under Section 71, in the present case, was carried out under clause (a) and not under clause (b) because the mechanism provided in clause (b) was not either initiated or started. There is thus a clear distinction between clause (a) and clause (b) of Section 92. The execution of the Award made under Section 71, in the present case, was carried out under clause (a) and not under clause (b) because the mechanism provided in clause (b) was not either initiated or started. Once, therefore, it is held and concluded that the Award was put to execution under clause (a), execution had to be in the same manner as for the recovery of the arrears of land revenue in accordance with the manner provided for this purpose in law for the time being in force. 21. A consequential question which arises for consideration in this case is whether U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (“1950 Act” for short) was the law for the time being in force relating to the recovery of arrears of land revenue or it was U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Section 1(2) of 1950 Act reads thus : “1(2) It extends to the whole of the Uttar Pradesh except the areas which, on the 7th day of July, 1949, were included in a municipality or a notified area under the provisions of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act II of 1916) or a Cantonment, under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (U.P. Act II or 1924) or a Town Areas under the provisions of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914 (U.P. Act I of 1914) : Provided that in relation to areas included in the Rampur Municipality, this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words and figures ‘7th day of July, 1949’ the words and figures “31st day of July, 1949’, were substituted therein : Provided further that where any area which on July 7, 1949, was included in a Municipality, Notified Area, Cantonment or Town Area, ceases to be so included therein at any time after that date and no notification has been made in respect thereof under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 – (i) in case it has ceased to be so included at any time before June 29, 1971, this Act shall extend to such area from June 29, 1971, and (ii) in any other case, this Act shall extend to such area from the date on which the area ceases to be so included.” 22. A bare perusal of this Section clearly reveals that whereas the Act extends to whole of Uttar Pradesh (read Uttarakhand), it does not extend to the areas which are included in a municipality, notified area or a cantonment area etc. etc. Undoubtedly, the property in question forming the subject matter of the auction held on 7th March, 2007 was situated in the city of Dehradun, which is a Municipal Corporation. By a plain reading of Section 1(2) of the 1950 Act, we have no manner of doubt in our minds that 1950 Act was not applicable to the auction in question. 23. That brings us to U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Section 162 of this Act reads thus : “162. Power to proceed against interest of defaulter in property other that in respect of which default is made.- (1) If an arrear cannot be recovered by any of the processes mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 146, the Collector may realize the same by attachment and sale of the interest of the defaulter in any other immovable property of the defaulter : Provided that when such property is sold the provisions of Section 161 shall not apply to such sale. (2) Sums of money recoverable as arrears of revenue, but not due in respect of any specific land, may be recovered by process under this section against any immovable property of the default.” 24. Under Section 163 of 1901 Act, it is provided that whenever the sale of any land or other immovable property has been sanctioned, the Collector shall issue a proclamation of the intended sale specifying the land to be sold, the arrears of the land revenue required to be paid, the time & place of sale etc. etc. Under Section 164, every sale under the Act shall be made either by the Collector himself or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf. Section 166 of the Act lays down that if the defaulter pays the arrears in respect of which the property is required to be sold at any time before the day fixed for the sale, the sale shall not take place. Under Section 167, the successful bidder in the auction purchase is required to deposit immediately 25% of the bid amount. Under Section 167, the successful bidder in the auction purchase is required to deposit immediately 25% of the bid amount. If he commits default in doing so, the property is liable to be put to auction once again. The full amount of purchase money, in terms of Section 168, has to be deposited by the auction purchaser in the Collector’s Office on or before the 15th day of the auction. As per Section 171, every sale of land and other immovable property under the Act is required to be reported by the Collector to the Commissioner. 25. Now come three important Sections of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, which we have to notice and apply very carefully in this case. These are Sections 172, 173 and 174. Let us reproduce these three Sections hereunder for our ready reference. These read as under : “172. Application to set aside sale on deposit of arrear, etc.- (1) Any person, whose land or other immovable property has been sold under this Act may, at any time within thirty days from the date of sale, apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in the Collector’s Office – (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money; and (b) for payment on account of the arrear, the account specified in the proclamation of sales as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale have been paid on that account; and (c) The costs of the sale. If such deposit is made within thirty days, the Collector shall pass an order setting aside the sale : Provided that if a person applies under Section 173 to set aside such sale, he shall not be entitled to make an application under this Section : Provided also that if the land has been sold free of encumbrances under Section 161, the encumbrances shall be revised as soon as the sale is set aside under this section. (2) Every application to set aside a sale under this section, and the final order passed thereon, shall be immediately reported by the Collector to the Commissioner. 173. Application to set aside sale for irregularity, etc. (2) Every application to set aside a sale under this section, and the final order passed thereon, shall be immediately reported by the Collector to the Commissioner. 173. Application to set aside sale for irregularity, etc. – At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistakes in publishing or conducting it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. 174. Order confirming or setting aside sale. – On the expiration of thirty days from the date of sale, if no such application as is mentioned in Section 172 or 173 has been made, or if such application has been made and rejected, the Commissioner shall pass an order confirming the sale; And, if such application under Section 173 is made and allowed, the Commissioner shall pass an order setting aside the sale. Every order under this section shall be final.” 26. Writ petitioner Nakul Singh’s contention is that on 16th March, 2007 he had filed an Application addressed to the Commissioner purportedly in terms of Section 172 of the Act. Copy of the Application has been annexed with his Writ Petition and averment to the effect that the Application was filed is made in Para 23 of the Writ Petition. In Para 24 of the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in his case, there is a specific and clear denial about any such application having been received by the Commissioner or anybody else. Even though Nakul Singh, writ petitioner, chose to file Rejoinder Affidavit to the aforesaid Counter Affidavit of the respondents, he conveniently did not choose to deal with Para 24 of the Counter Affidavit in which the fact about the Application, having been made, had been specifically denied. Nor did Nakul Singh, writ petitioner, file any document in proof to show that the Application had been received by the Commissioner or anybody else. We have, therefore, no option but to draw an inference that the fact about the Application under Section 172 having been made, is not a correct or true fact. We, therefore, have to hold that no such Application was made by Nakul Singh. We have, therefore, no option but to draw an inference that the fact about the Application under Section 172 having been made, is not a correct or true fact. We, therefore, have to hold that no such Application was made by Nakul Singh. 27. In any event, as per the mandatory requirement of Section 172 (supra), since Nakul Singh, petitioner, had not paid to the auction purchaser 5% of the bid amount nor had made any payment of the arrears of land revenue, the entire amount specified in the proclamation of the sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, Application under Section 172, even if filed, was not maintainable. 28. Yes, Nakul Singh did make an Application in terms of Section 173 of 1901 Act pointing out some alleged irregularities etc. and praying for setting aside the sale on the grounds mentioned in this Application. It is this Application of Nakul Singh which was rejected by the Commissioner vide impugned Order dated 23rd May, 2007. We have already held that the order rejecting Nakul Singh’s Application filed under Section 173 does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. We hereby affirm that order. 29. While dealing with the nature of proceedings under Section 173 of 1901 Act, a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Swaroop etc. etc. Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in (1990) 1 CRC 449, held and observed as under : “Earlier the Collector was also included in it but by way of amendment made in the year 1974 the word ‘collector’ was taken out from it. The Commissioner is a Court under Land Revenue Act and as referred to above. Consequently, the Commissioner will be deemed a revenue court within the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act except were he acts in administrative capacity may it be acting as a quasi judicial authority. There is specific provision of revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. As such revision and proceedings arising out of orders passed under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will lie before the Board of Revenue under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and not under U.P. Land Revenue Act. There is specific provision of revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. As such revision and proceedings arising out of orders passed under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will lie before the Board of Revenue under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and not under U.P. Land Revenue Act. The Commissioner for the purposes of deciding objections under Section 173 and 174 is deemed to acting as revenue court under the Land Revenue Act and proceedings taken by him are judicial proceedings. The question will be whether the proceedings taken under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules will be deemed judicial proceedings and the Commissioner will be deemed to be a Court when the proceedings in this behalf under both the Acts are judicial.” 30. There is thus no manner of doubt that an order passed under Section 173 is judicial in nature as well as the proceedings culminating in the passing of that order are judicial in nature. The Commissioner, therefore, having in the course of these proceedings, passed a judicial order rejecting Section 173 Application of Nakul Singh, by virtue of the obligation cast upon him in Section 174, he had no option but to confirm the sale. We are saying so because the obligation cast upon the Commissioner, as contained in Section 174, is mandatory and binding in nature. Section 174 clearly provides that if an Application under Section 173 has in fact been made and if it is rejected, the Commissioner has no option but to pass an order confirming the sale. Conversely speaking once the Commissioner has rejected an Application filed before him under Section 173 (supra), he has no jurisdiction or power not to confirm the sale. 31. Various Intervention Applications have been filed in these two Cases. We are allowing all the Intervention Applications. One of the Intervention Application has been filed by the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., which is the creditor of the amount in question as well as the beneficiary of the auction sale. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate appearing for the Intervener Bank has contended before us that Nakul Singh, writ petitioner; K.K. Garg; and Ram Gopal Sharma etc. at the behest of the Loanee and Nakul Singh, are adopting delaying tactics so as to prevent the Bank from realizing its duties. According to Mr. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate appearing for the Intervener Bank has contended before us that Nakul Singh, writ petitioner; K.K. Garg; and Ram Gopal Sharma etc. at the behest of the Loanee and Nakul Singh, are adopting delaying tactics so as to prevent the Bank from realizing its duties. According to Mr. Lok Pal Singh, opposing the confirmation of the auction sale in the present case also is a link in the long drawn chain of delaying tactics adopted by the aforesaid persons Mr. Lok Pal Singh has told us that the amount of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- offered by petitioner V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. reflects the correct valuation of the property in question. According to him, the Bank accepts this amount. The property in question could not have fetched any higher amount because almost all the shops forming part of the property in question are occupied by tenants whose eviction from these shops is almost next to impossible. The amount of Rs.2,38,00,000/- reflected by the Valuer projecting this as the market price, according to Mr. Lok Pal Singh, does not reflect the correct picture on ground because of the occupation of all the shops by the tenants and there being near impossible success of their being vacated at the instance of any auction purchaser. 32. On a totality of circumstances, we ourselves have no doubt in our minds that the auction procedure did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and the highest bid of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- reflected the correct market value of the property in question. 33. Let us now deal with a legal point raised by the respondents in Writ Petition No. 15 of 2009 (M/B). According to the respondents, the successful auction purchaser in an auction has no right to claim the confirmation of sale. In the present case, it is not a question of claiming the confirmation of sale as such by an auction purchaser who had offered the highest bid. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, referable to various provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, particularly Section 174 thereof, the contention and grievance of the auction purchaser is that once the Application of the aggrieved person filed under Section 173 was rejected by the Commissioner, he had no jurisdiction or authority not to confirm the sale. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, referable to various provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, particularly Section 174 thereof, the contention and grievance of the auction purchaser is that once the Application of the aggrieved person filed under Section 173 was rejected by the Commissioner, he had no jurisdiction or authority not to confirm the sale. In the present case, therefore, the successful auction purchaser is asserting the enforcement of a statutory right vesting in him under Section 174 and this statutory right correspondingly creates an obligation on the part of the Commissioner to confirm the sale. The enforcement of a statutory right flowing from a binding and mandatory provision of law is a distinct and separate legal proposition than the mere request for confirmation of a sale by a successful auction purchaser in the ordinary course of things. On that reasoning, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that V.I.R. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., writ petition, is entitled to seek a mandamus from this Court directing the Commissioner to confirm the sale in question because, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the act of non-confirmation of the sale, apart from being prejudicial to the petitioner, runs counter to the scheme of Section 174 of 1901 Act. 34. In the result, Writ Petition No. 5 of 2009 (M/B) is dismissed. The Order dated 23rd May, 2007 passed by the Commissioner is affirmed and upheld. The petitioner in this Writ Petition is not held entitled to the grant of any relief by us. 35. Writ Petition No. 15 of 2009 (M/B) is allowed. The impugned Orders dated 10th July, 2007 and 12th July, 2007 (Annexures Nos. 18 & 19 to the Writ Petition) are hereby quashed and set aside. Correspondingly, therefore, Auction Notice dated 20th July, 2007 is also quashed and set aside. Respondents, particularly respondent No. 1, by issuance of writ of Mandamus, are hereby ordered and directed by us to confirm the auction held on 7th March, 2007 as well as sale of the property in question in favour of the writ petitioner and to execute Sale Deed of the property in question with all the necessary consequences. 36. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs in both the cases.