JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Original petitioner and two others borrowed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on 14.8.1981 from Krishi Vikas Bank, Ballia, respondent No. 5 for purchasing a tractor and a trolley. Some payments were made towards loan but thereafter borrowers became defaulters. Accordingly, recovery proceedings for balance amount were initiated. Tractor was attached and original petitioner was also sent to civil prison for 14 days. Thereafter, original petitioner’s agricultural land having an area of 2.34 acres was auctioned on 18.9.1989 (earlier auction was to be held on 10.9.1989 however that being Sunday, the sale was postponed to 18.9.1989). The land was purchased by respondent No. 6, Bishwa Nath Tewari for Rs. 42,000/-. During pendency of the recovery proceedings, petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 6050/- on 7.9.1989 and thereafter Rs. 45,000/- on 12.10.1989. Receipt is Annexure-VII to the writ petition. Annexure-VI is copy of petitioner’s application for depositing Rs. 45,000/-. S.D.O. permitted the deposit by his order dated 11.10.1989. Thereafter, deposits were made on 12.10.1989 however sale was confirmed on 23.10.1989 by the Collector as stated in Para-29 of the writ petition, which is quoted below : “That the respondent No. 2 instead of sending the file to the Commissioner, illegally confirmed the sale on 23.10.1989 and issued sale certificate on 28.10.1989.”(respondent No. 2 is Collector Ballia) 3. However, in Para-24, it is mentioned that respondent No. 3, i.e. S.D.O., Ballia confirmed the sale on 23.10.1989. Copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-VIII. Annexure-VIII is copy of order of confirmation of sale, which has been passed by S.D.O. on 23.10.1989. Accordingly, it appears that in Para-29 the words ‘’respondent No. 2' have wrongly been mentioned and it should be ‘’respondent No. 3'. 4. Against auction sale, petitioner filed objections under Rule 285-I of the Rules framed under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The objections were registered as Sale Case No. 1/218 of 1989 on the file of Additional Commissioner (II), Varanasi Division, Varanasi. Objections were rejected on 17.3.1990. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. 5. In this writ petition on 2.2.2011 following order was passed : “Heard learned counsel for the parties to some extent. The Court wants to know the following things: 1. What is the status of deposit of the amount made by both the parties i.e. Rs. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. 5. In this writ petition on 2.2.2011 following order was passed : “Heard learned counsel for the parties to some extent. The Court wants to know the following things: 1. What is the status of deposit of the amount made by both the parties i.e. Rs. 42,000/- deposited by respondent No. 6 and of Rs. 45,000/- deposited by the petitioner on 12.10.1989. Whether the said amounts or any one of that has been handed over to the Bank concerned or not? 2. What is the date of the order directing entry of the name of auction purchaser respondent No. 6 in the revenue record? 3. What is the position of the loan in the records of the Bank, whether records of the bank are still showing some amount due or not? List in the week commencing 14.2.2010. “ 6. Thereafter on 18.2.2011 when arguments were heard and judgment was reserved, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the amount of Rs. 45,000/- deposited by him on 12.10.1989 and other amounts deposited by him before the Tehsil authorities were sent by them to the Bank concerned and thereupon the Bank declared that no further amount was due against the petitioner. However, learned counsel for auction purchaser, respondent No. 6 stated that his client had not informed him that what happened to the amount of Rs. 42000/-, which was deposited by him as auctioned money (Rs. 10,500/- as one fourth amount on the date of sale i.e. 18.9.1989 and Rs. 31,500/-, three fourth amount of the auction money deposited on 29.9.1989). 7. Regarding possession, learned counsel for both the parties also gave statements on 18.2.2011. Learned counsel for auction purchaser stated that possession of the auctioned land had been delivered to his client on 30.10.1989, however son of the petitioner got mutated his name over the land in dispute in revenue records during consolidation operation, hence purchaser filed objections and ultimately on 21.8.2002 name of auction purchaser was entered in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that until August, 2002 petitioner and after his death his son and after his son’s death, original petitioner’s grand sons were in possession, however, in August, 2002 possession was taken by the respondent No. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that until August, 2002 petitioner and after his death his son and after his son’s death, original petitioner’s grand sons were in possession, however, in August, 2002 possession was taken by the respondent No. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the order passed by consolidation officer in favour of auction purchaser was subjudice in an appeal. 8. Accordingly, it is admitted to learned counsel for both the parties that at least since August, 2002 auction purchaser is in possession. 9. The first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of Rule 285-G of the Rules framed under the Act, next date of auction could not be fixed before one month after its postponement. The next point argued is that sale could not be confirmed by S.D.O. as only Collector is empowered to confirm the sale. As far as second point is concerned, it is squarely covered by two Division Bench authorities of this Court cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. One is reported a Ajay Upadhyay v. Collector Ballia, 2008 (3) ADJ 109 (DB) and the other is in Ram Awadh Tiwari v. Sudarshan Tiwari, 2008 (6) ADJ 776 (DB). In the second authority after quoting government order dated 17.1.1976, it has been held that sale may be conducted by S.D.O. but it shall be approved only by the Collector. 10. In view of this, I need not decide the first point. 11. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the objections of the petitioner as well as auction sale dated 18.9.1989 including its confirmation dated 23.10.1989 is set aside. Respondent No. 6 auction purchaser shall deliver the possession of the property in dispute to the petitioner forthwith and the amount of Rs. 42,000/- deposited by him shall at once be returned to him. —————