JUDGMENT Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Commissioner dated 26.3.1992 passed under Rule 285(I) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules, 1952 (in short the Rules). 2. The grievance of the petitioner being auction purchaser is that certain loan were taken by Muneshwar the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and one Udai Raj Singh from Union Bank of India. Since they were unable to pay back their loan, property in question was put to auction on 28.4.1988. The petitioner participated in the auction proceeding by bidding Rs. 1,35,000/- for the said property which was the highest offer. As per the aforesaid Rules the auction money was deposited with the concerned authority and on 28.5.1988 the said auction sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of Munenshar, who had unfortunately died, filed objection before the Tehsildar that they had no knowledge of the aforesaid auction as the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who was the loanee had expired. The said application was filed under Rule 285(I) of the aforesaid Rules. The Commissioner while considering the application passed the order impugned dated 26.3.1992 on the ground that no notice was given to the heirs of the deceased loanee and, therefore, the entire proceedings were vitiated. 3. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner has now filed this writ petition. 4. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in this matter. 5. Ad interim order was obtained by the petitioner on 1.5.1992 and is continuing till date and now the matter has come up before this Court under the heading “old cases” for admission. 6. List has been revised. None is present for the respondent-Bank and the private respondents. 7. I have heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no separate notice was required to be given to the heirs of the deceased loanee as they themselves had appeared before the date of auction and pursuant to Rule 285(H) of the said Rules they could have also applied for cancellation of the said auction after depositing full amount plus 5%. That having not been done and they having full knowledge of auction, the proceedings could not have been set-aside only on this ground that the notices were not issued to them. 9. Learned counsel has further submitted that the proceedings under Rule 285(I) of the said Rules are non judicial proceedings in support of which he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Singh and others v. Divisional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur and others, 2006 (100) RD 534 : 2006(3) ADJ (NOC) 5. 10. Be that as it may, it does appear from the order that on the date of auction the heirs of the deceased had knowledge of the said auction and they could have prevented the auction by depositing the amount of loan but till date no such amount has been deposited. On the other hand, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount and had participated in the auction proceeding in a bona fide manner and the property in question is also in possession of the petitioner. 11. Today, when the matter was called out, none is present to prosecute the matter for the private respondents as well as the respondent-Bank. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent-Bank is satisfied since the bank has already received the entire amount which has been paid by the petitioner and so far the affected respondent, i.e., the private respondents are concerned they are not prosecuting the matter before this Court. The petitioner, on the other hand, is being put to undue hardship even after participating in a bona fide manner in the auction proceeding whereby he had also deposited the entire amount and the sale has also been confirmed. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and there appears to be some substance in it. Admittedly, the auction was conducted on account of the fact that the loan amount could not be paid by the loanee. The legal heirs of the loanee had full knowledge as they appeared on the date of auction. Under the UPZA&LR Rules respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could have stalled the auction proceedings by depositing some amount to show their bona fides by saying that they are willing to pay the rest of the loan amount. The legal heirs of the loanee had full knowledge as they appeared on the date of auction. Under the UPZA&LR Rules respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could have stalled the auction proceedings by depositing some amount to show their bona fides by saying that they are willing to pay the rest of the loan amount. That having not been done by them, even till today, as provided under Rule 285(H) of the said Rules. The petitioner, who has deposited the entire amount cannot be put to any disadvantage. 13. Under these circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained and it is hereby set-aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 14. Parties to bear their own cost.