Shabihul Hasnain, J.;- By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5. 1995 as contained in annexure no. 3 to the writ petition, on the basis of which the property of the petitioner was transferred in the name of the State of Uttar Pradesh, in the revenue record after being auctioned on the said date. He has further challenged the orders dated 16.11.1995, by which the objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected being barred by limitation, on the ground that the sale has already been confirmed as well as the order dated 26.2.1996, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.11.1995, was also dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow. The case of the petitioner is that opposite party no. 5 to the writ petition Sri Ikrar Ahmad had taken a loan of Rs.27,000/- under the Minority Scheme for establishing Sultan Kirana and General Store, situated in Shukul Bazar Road, Jagdishpur, District Sultanpur, in which the petitioner was one of the guarantors and the opposite party no. 6 Sayeed Ahmad was another guarantor. In that guarantee, the petitioner being a proprietor of Surman Medical Store, his Medical Store paper was deposited in the bank as 'guarantee'. The opposite party no. 5 failed to deposit the regular instalment imposed by the Bank. It has been averred in the writ petition that without making real efforts for recovery of the loan from the debtor- opposite party no.5, and without issuing Form No. 73 and 74, the property of the petitioner, which was not even mortgaged, has been auctioned. The auction proceedings took place in the year 1990 behind the back of the petitioner, which came into the knowledge of the petitioner on 25.6. 1995 when he went to Tehsil for a copy of Khautauni, that his property no. 648, 7 Biswa, 17 dhur and 733; 12 biswa, 15 dhur has been auctioned in one rupee. The objection as well as the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed being barred by limitation. The said impugned orders are illegal and non speaking. There was no deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner. It has also been said that the said property is situated on the road side of near the main market of Jagdishpur, the valuation of which is above than rupees five lacs. The said impugned orders are illegal and non speaking. There was no deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner. It has also been said that the said property is situated on the road side of near the main market of Jagdishpur, the valuation of which is above than rupees five lacs. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application for interim relief, the petitioner has asserted that now the entire loan has been deposited by the borrower with the bank and the bank has issued no dues certificate to opposite party no. 5. The property, which was auctioned in lieu of one rupee, has been recorded in the name of the State Government, and the opposite parties might give patta of the land . The writ petition was filed in the year 1997. On 15.7. 1997, learned standing counsel was directed to file counter- affidavit within four weeks. Since then, on one ground or the other, the case has been adjourned and the State could only file counter- affidavit on May 16, 2011 highly belatedly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not served with the Z.A. Form 69 alleged issued on 15.2. 1994, on 19.2.1994 as there does not find mention the name of any witness in whose presence the same was served. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has not received Z.A. Form 74 allegedly issued on 12.8. 1994 as is apparent from the report dated 14.9. 1994, that since the date for auction was fixed for 14.9. 1994 vide Z.A. Form no. 74 dated 12.8.1994, the same ought to have been served prior to 14.9.1994. Vide Form no. 74 plot no. 648 and 733, which is not the property inform by the bank, has been put to auction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the process of auction, laid emphasis that since vide Z.A. Form 74 dated 12.8.1994, the date for auction was fixed as 14.9.1994, then after postponement of the auction date, no sale could take place until a fresh proclamation is issued under rule 285-G, which provides that no sale after the postponement under Rules 285 A 285 D or 285 E, in default of the payment of the purchase money shall be made until a fresh proclamation has been issued as prescribed for the original sale. It has been urged that without following this provision the auction proceeding was adjourned for several dates and ultimately the auction took place on 8.3.1995 after the postponing the same about sixteen times, which is in gross violation of rule 285-G and 285D, in lieu of one rupee, in favour of the auction purchaser, who is the same person, which too is against the provision of rule 285-B,which provides that no bid as offered up to the amount of the arrears for which the sale has been ordered, the Collector may bid up the amount of such arrears, therefore, the entire auction proceedings is in violation of the rules. Learned standing counsel has urged that on the date of sale, no one appeared to participate in the auction sale proceedings, as such several other dates were fixed but still no one has appeared to bid and participate in the auction due to influence of the petitioner, there was no option but to auction sale the property and therefore, same was auctioned for an amount of Rs.1/- only in favour of the State Government, which cannot be accepted to be reasonable and correct for auctioning the property for Rs.1/- only. There appears to be no reason why, after being noticed at large, the persons would not be participating in the auction on several dates. In an auction, there must be a minimum and maximum limit of prices, on which the property can be auctioned. In no case, a price can be fixed for Rs.1/- only, which appears to be totally irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable. More so, when the objection against the auction sale was filed, the same was dismissed with an non speaking order and the revision against which, was too dismissed in a very cursory manner. Nothing has been detailed in both these orders. When the factum of auction sale was challenged by way of objection and thereafter, under the revision, the disputed question of facts ought to have been dealt with by the authorities. But, without entering into the merit of the case and without discussing the fact as to how the objection was filed much belatedly, the same has been dismissed. Likewise, in the same tenor, the order in revision has been passed. But, without entering into the merit of the case and without discussing the fact as to how the objection was filed much belatedly, the same has been dismissed. Likewise, in the same tenor, the order in revision has been passed. There appears to be no reason that when an action of the State is known to the petitioner, which involves auctioning of his property for Rs.1/- only, he would not have raised the same in time in the objection and why he will not file a revision, exhausting alternative remedy before approaching to file the writ petition. The petitioner would have been very much inclined to save his property by way of approaching the authorities. If there would have been a legal auction sale, then while deciding the objection or the revision, the discussion should have been made in the order to establish that the same have been preferred belatedly, but it has not been done. The only inference, which can be drawn is that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Besides the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds, on the basis of which, writ petition is liable to be allowed, but this Court for the reason of brevity, revert back to only one question of law whether the bid of a public auction could be finalized in lieu of only one rupee, as has been done in the present case. A bid is arranged to achieve the amount due by way of auction, in a competition amongst participants. An auction is process of taking bids and selling of the property to the highest bidder, depending on time limits, minimum or maximum limits on bid prices. It appears that in the present case, process of auction has not been followed at all. No bid appears to have been arranged. There appears to be no competition amongst participants as also the process of taking bids and selling the property to the highest bidder towards the maximum limits of bid price, have not been adopted in the auction and bid has been finalized in lieu of one rupee only, in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that apart from other irregularities, there are two important questions, which need to be answered while deciding this matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that apart from other irregularities, there are two important questions, which need to be answered while deciding this matter. These questions are; whether requirement of Section 285-G was fulfilled and again whether Section 283 was adhered to in real spirit. The petitioner has emphasized on rule 285-G, which reads as under :- "No sale after the postponement under rules 285-A, 285-D or 285-E in default of the payment of the purchase money shall be made until a fresh proclamation has been issued as prescribed for the original sale" The petitioner has referred to para-xxiii and xxiv of the counter- affidavit and demonstrated the admitted position of the opposite party. It has been clearly admitted that on the date of sale i.e. 14.9.1994, no one appeared to participate in the auction sale proceedings, as such auction officer- Naib Tehsildar has requested Parganadhikari, Musafirkhana to fix another date to auction sale of immovable property of the petitioner. This report of the Naib Tehsildar is on record.- Annexure no. CA-26 to the counter- affidavit filed by the opposite parties. Para-24 clearly mentions and admits that several dates for auction sale proceedings i.e. 12.12.1994, 15.12.1994, 12.12.1994, 17.12.1994, 24.12.1994, 31.12.1994, 7.1.1995, 14.1.1995, 21.1.1995, 23.1.1995, 14.2.1995, 11.2.1995, 18.2.1995, 23.2.1995, 28.2.1995, 8.3.1995, were fixed but no one appeared to bid and participate in the auction sale. Paragraph further goes on to state that ultimately, there was no option except to auction the sale property in favour of the State and the plots in question were auction by the Auction Officer Naib Tehsildar, Jagdishpur on 8.3.1995 for an amount of Rs.1/- (rupees one only) in favour of the State and the said amount was deposited in the treasury on 8.3.1995, itself. Copy of the order sheets of the aforesaid dates and the photo state copy of the proceedings of the auction dated 8.3.1995 of immovable property of guarantor Mohd. Rafiq- the petitioner, of plot no. 648/ 0- 6- 17 and 633/ 0-12-15, a total area of 0-19- 12 situated in village Lakhanipur, and a receipt of Re.1/- have all been annexed as annexures CA- 27, 28 and 29 respectively with the counter- affidavit. It may be worth mentioning that all these proceedings have been denied by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder- affidavit. It may be worth mentioning that all these proceedings have been denied by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder- affidavit. It has been stated that all these proceedings were held behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed that these documents have been concocted after this Court insisted for filing of the counter- affidavit and they should not be relied upon. In any view of the matter, two questions glaringly come out of these facts and the situation of the case; even if the case of the opposite party, as stated in the counter- affidavit, has to be believed in to to. The first question as earlier mentioned in the foregoing paragraph is that whether the requirement of rule 285-G has been fulfilled or not. As per requirement fresh proclamation needs to be issued after a postponement of fresh sale. It is manifest and clear from the statement of the opposite parties that sale was postponed number of times but no fresh proclamation of sale under Z.A. Form No. 24 was issued again. As such by their own admission, the auction sale will be hit for non compliance of provision under rule 285-G of the Act. Another question which arise is non compliance of rule 283 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, which reads as under :- "In proclamation for sale under section 286, the Collector shall state the amount of the annual demand and the estimated value of the property calculated in accordance with the rules in Chapter XV of the Revenue Manual." For proclamation of sale under section 286, the Collector shall state the amount and the estimated value of the property calculated in accordance with the rules in Chapter XV of the Revenue Manual. The Collector has given estimated value of the property as Rs.7370/-. This has been done by simply multiplying the rate of lagan x 1000. The proper course for calculating the approximate estimated value of the plots would have been, on the basis of the ratio of three sale deeds of the same time of the adjoining plots. While the auction was being made for the purposes of repayment of bank loan, the Officer should have estimated the value in such a manner so as to fetch maximum of the amount of money arising out of the auction. While the auction was being made for the purposes of repayment of bank loan, the Officer should have estimated the value in such a manner so as to fetch maximum of the amount of money arising out of the auction. The manner in which the valuation of the land has been calculated, gives credence to the allegation of the petitioner that all these documents have been fabricated later on, only to fill up the lacuna when the case came up for final hearing and the counter- affidavit was required. In any view of the matter, the land could not have been sold for less than 7370/- in any case. Rule 285-A provides, which is quoted below, clearly mentions that there cannot be postponement of less than thirty days, of which proclamation under rule 282 was issued earlier, although the Collector has been permitted to postpone the sale from time to time. The opposite parties have clearly violated this provision as well, as they have themselves admitted in para-24 of the counter- affidavit. The six dates were given in the month of December, 1994, four dates were given in the month of January, 1995, five dates were given in the month of February, 1995. A question has cropped up as to the validity of the purchase for only Re. 1/- by the Collector. No doubt proviso to rule 285-B provided that where in any auction under section 284, no bid is offered up to the amount of arrear for which sale has been ordered, the Collector may bid up to the amount of such arrear. This provision, though gives a power to the Collector to bid but it does not give power to bid only for Re.1/-, which has no rationale. Learned standing counsel has tried to justify the action of the Collector on the ground that it has been long standing practice, yet he miserably failed to support his contention with any law, rule, regulation or judgment of any Court. It is strange that in the country, where right to property though not fundamental right, but is still a constitutional right, such type of bidding can be allowed on behalf of the State. It is well settled that no land or property of a person can be taken away by the State without any adequate compensation. Even the concept of 'eminent domain' does not allow the acquisition without compensation. It is well settled that no land or property of a person can be taken away by the State without any adequate compensation. Even the concept of 'eminent domain' does not allow the acquisition without compensation. The State may have a right to acquire the land but the State does not have a right to acquire the same without paying the adequate compensation to the owner of the landed property. In the present case, where the State, itself has declared the valuation of the land as Rs.7370/- in Z.A. Form No. 74, it will be totally inequitable to pay a token sum of Re. 1/- in place of estimated value. Moreover, the State, through its Collector has acted only as a collection agency on behalf of the bank. It will be absurd to propose that the Collector can pay only a sum of Re. 1/- and become owner of the land, while debt of the bank still remains to be paid. This will be a case of double jeopardy. On one hand, land of the guarantor has gone to the State for a paltry sum of Re. 1/-, and on other hand, debt of the bank still remained on the head of the debtor. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has been done in the present case. While preparing judgment of this case, the Court has been able to lay its hand on a G.O. No. 47/2/70 (2-261) Rajasva-7 dated 5.6.1974. This G.O. has been issued specifically with regard to rule 285-b of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952. This G.O. clearly prohibits the Collectors from bidding in auction of immovable property ordinarily. The Collector should bid only in the case of Malguzari pending against farmers. They should not bid with regard to any other kind of recovery. Moreover, the G.O. says that the Collector can bid up to the amount of such arrears. It is, thus, very clear that the Collector could not have auctioned the property only for a sum of Re.1/- that too, with regard to the bank loan. It has been explained and clarified by the G.O. issued with regard to rule 285-b that it was meant only with regard to arrears of Malguzari and not on any other kind of arrears, for example a bank loan. It has been explained and clarified by the G.O. issued with regard to rule 285-b that it was meant only with regard to arrears of Malguzari and not on any other kind of arrears, for example a bank loan. In the present case loan was granted by the Bank of Baroda and, the State was only the agency for recovering the bank loan. It was clearly not a case of arrears of Malguzari. The action of the Collector was, thus, violative of all norms and procedure. It was against the rule 285-b, the Government Order and the very purpose of the auction. The auction in such cases is resorted to recover the amount of loan, which is not paid back in the account of the bank. It is not supposed to be resorted to as a measure of penalty and to render the guarantor landless. The auction was thus, bad in law and deserves to be set aside for all counts mentioned herein above. The irregularities have been committed in violation of all the rules; none of the provisions of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules, relating to sale of immovable property, have been adhered to. Even if, all the allegations of the petitioner are not believed, it is difficult to justify the action of the opposite parties on the basis of their admitted case. Their admission in the counter- affidavit are openly flagrant of the rules 283, 285-a, 285-b and 285-g. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned auction sale dated 16.5.1995 as contained in annexure no. C.A.-30, is set aside. The consequent order dated 16.11.1995 rejecting the objection by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the Revisional order dated 26.2.1996 rejecting the revision by the Board of Revenue, are also set aside. The opposite parties are directed to immediately restore back the possession and ownership of the land in question in the name of the petitioner, and maintain the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. The land shall be restored without any encumbrances.