Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.— Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by Ram Gopal Verma against the order dated 22-10-2009 passed by Member(Judicial), Hon'ble Board of Revenue, UP., Lucknow in Revision No. 5 (Sale)/ LR 1999-2000 by which order dated 10-5-2000 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and auction dated 19-6-1997 was also quashed. 3. On factual matrix of the case Santosh Kumar was the owner of Khata No. 335, Plot Nos. 575/1.073, 582/0.746 in which he has got l/3rd share. He has taken a loan of amounting Rs. 9500 from UP. Rajay Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited, Kachhauna, Hardoi but later on became defaulter of the same. Several notices were issued and a notice was served to repay the loan and when the loan amount was not repaid, auction pro­ceeding was initiated and Akar Patra 73 and 73-Gha was issued and served and thereafter Akar Patra 74 for auction of the property was issued and served, but the amount due was not deposited. Later on 19-6-1997 auction took place. No objec­tion was filed by Santosh Kumar against estimated amount. The amount was not deposited hence a proposal dated 16-8-1997 was prepared by Tehsildar, Tehsildar, District-Hardoi and the 'same was accepted on 16-8-1997 by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi and auction took place in which petitioner was the high­est bidder. His bid was accepted, due amount was deposited which was admitted by authorities on 13-10-1997 and was approved by learned Sub-Divisional Mag­istrate, Hardoi on 13-10-1997 and there­after sale certificate under Rule 285-M of UP.Z.A. and LR. Rules, 1952 (later on referred as the Rules) was prepared and signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi for registering the document. It vas registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Hardoi. After that Tehsildar wrote a letter to Consolidation Officer, Baghauli for en­tering the name of petitioner in place of Santosh Kumar on the basis of Sale Cer­tificate. Santosh Kumar (opposite party No. 5) filed a Sale Objection under Rule 285(1) which was registered as Sale Ob­jection No. 22/97-98 before the Commis­sioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. This objection was rejected by Additional Com­missioner (Judicial) on 10-5-2000 as there was no illegality or irregularity in the auc­tion proceeding. 4. Feeling aggrieved Santosh Kumar filed revision before Board of Revenue which was allowed by the impugned order. 5. This objection was rejected by Additional Com­missioner (Judicial) on 10-5-2000 as there was no illegality or irregularity in the auc­tion proceeding. 4. Feeling aggrieved Santosh Kumar filed revision before Board of Revenue which was allowed by the impugned order. 5. It was argued from the side of peti­tioner as per Rule 285(H) the person whose land has been sold under the Act at any time within 30 days from the date of sale apply to have the same set aside on his depositing in the Collector's Office for payment of the purchaser, the same equal to 5% purchase money and for pay­ment on account of arrears amount specify in the proclamation in Z.A. Form 74. It was also argued that this proce­dure was not adopted hence the applica­tion is liable to be rejected. It was barred and it could not have been filed before the Additional Commissioner. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 argued that the Sale Objection has been filed under Rule 285-I of the Rules hence it was made before the Commis­sioner. It was also argued that Akar Patra No. 74 was not served. Hence there is an irregularity. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that on three occasions Akar Patra 74 was issued to the respondent No. 5 on 16-8-1997,22-10-1997 and 13-10-1997. 8. Akar Patras 73 and 73(Gha) is­sued on 15-5-1996 was personally served on respondent No. 5. Due to some rea­sons on these three occasions, auction could not be held so again Akar Patra 74 was issued on 16-6-1997 and on that date it was not personally served so it was af­fixed on his house and it was signed by two witnesses Amar Pal Singh and Munna though it was argued by respondent No. 5 again that he had no knowledge of the proceeding against him. 9. On 19-6-1997 auction took place and the bid was accepted on after depos­iting of the auction money on 16-8-1997 and the sale was approved on 13-10-1997. The sale objection was filed by Santosh Kumar on 8-12-1997. 10. The time limit given in Rule 285-I is 30 days from the date of sale. Admit­tedly, sale objection was filed beyond 30 days. On 19-6-1997 auction took place and the bid was accepted on after depos­iting of the auction money on 16-8-1997 and the sale was approved on 13-10-1997. The sale objection was filed by Santosh Kumar on 8-12-1997. 10. The time limit given in Rule 285-I is 30 days from the date of sale. Admit­tedly, sale objection was filed beyond 30 days. It has also been mentioned in this Rule that sale shall not be set aside on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it unless, the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained in­jury by reason of such irregularity or mis­take. Rule 285-I (iii) makes it clear that Order of the Commissioner passed un­der this Rule shall be final. It s also pertinent to note that Board of Revenue has made a mistake by ignoring the provi­sions of Rule 285-1 of the Rules which reads as follows: "[285-1. (i) 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 mistake 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 injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake]. (ii) [****] (iii) The order of the-Commissioner passed under this rule shall be final." 11. Thus, it is clear that remedy which was available to Santosh Kumar was to file a suit in the Civil Court for the purpose of setting aside sale on the ground of fraud. 12. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that Learned Member has not considered as to whether Santosh Kumar has sustained any injury by reasons of above irregularity or mistake alleged in the auction proceedings. Unless and until a finding is given on this point, learned Mem­ber could not have quashed the order passed by Additional Commissioner. 13. In view of this, as discussed above, the order passed by "Member Ju­dicial Board of Revenue, Lucknow is de­void of merit and is liable to be quashed. 14. The writ petition is allowed order dated 22-10-2009 passed by Member (Ju­dicial) Board of Revenue, Lucknow is quashed and order dated 10-5-2000 is passed by the Additional Commissioner is upheld. Petition allowed.