JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.: - Heard Sri Rakesh Pathak for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Jaisawal and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Commissioner dated 08.04.2002 setting aside the auction sale dated 05.11.2001 as confirmed on 11.12.2001 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 30.01.2006, dismissing the revision of the petitioners. 3. It appears that Ram Naresh and Gajodhar (now represented by respondents-5 and 6) took loan from Punjab & Sind Bank (respondent-7) for purchasing the tractor for agricultural purposes. They committed default in payment of the installments of the loan therefore the recovery proceedings has been initiated, in which citations were issued. Ram Naresh filed Misc. Single No. 53 of 2001, before this Court against recovery proceeding, which was disposed of by order dated 11.01.2001 and he was permitted to deposit the loan amount in three equal quarterly installments. However, Ram Naresh again committed default and not complied with the order dated 11.01.2001, then the Tehsildar has decided to proceed, under Section 284 and 286 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 to realize the loan amount by sale of the mortgaged as well as other properties of the defaulters. In pursuance thereof the notices in ZA Form 74 were issued to respondent-5 and Gajodhar and 05.11.2001 was fixed for auction of immovable properties. On 05.11.2001 the auction was held and the highest bid of the petitioners was accepted and auction sale was confirmed on 11.12.2001, by Sub-Divisional Officer. 4. Ram Naresh and Smt. Ganga Dei, (respondents-5 and 6) filed an application (registered as Misc. Case No. 57 of 2001) under Rule 285 I of UP Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, for setting aside the auction sale dated 5.11.2001 as confirmed on 11.12.2001. This application was filed on 13.12.2001, in which it has been stated that after issue of citation, they deposited Rs. 1,10,700/- on 09.09.2000. But their tractor was attached on 11.09.2000. In compliance of the order of High Court dated 11.01.2001, they deposited Rs. 25,000/- within two weeks of the order as directed but they could not deposit other installments in time. No notice of auction of immovable properties was given to them. Naib Tahsildar informed them about the auction on 19.11.2001. Although Gajodhar was dead but the notices in Z.A. Form 74 is alleged to have been served upon him. 25,000/- within two weeks of the order as directed but they could not deposit other installments in time. No notice of auction of immovable properties was given to them. Naib Tahsildar informed them about the auction on 19.11.2001. Although Gajodhar was dead but the notices in Z.A. Form 74 is alleged to have been served upon him. Neither the notices have been served upon the tenure holders nor the auction was conducted in proper manner and provisions of Rules 281, 282, 283 and 285 of the Rules were not complied with. The application was contested by the District Government Counsel who has stated that the auction was conducted in accordance with law. 5. The application was heard by Additional Commissioner (respondent-2) who by the impugned order dated 08.04.2002 found that the immovable property of respondents-5 and 6 has been auctioned at a very low rate. No notice has been issued to the defaulters before the auction as such the provisions of Rules 281, 282, 283 and 285 were not complied with. Although, it is alleged that notices have been personally served but Gajodhar was dead and there is nothing on record to show that notice was personally served upon Gajodhar. Respondents-5 and 6 have produced a bank draft of Rs. 1.50 lakh which shows that they were ready to deposit the dues. In such circumstances, it was found that the auction was held in irregular manner and accordingly the auction sale as well as the confirmation were set aside. 6. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 126/2001-02) against the aforesaid order before Board of Revenue, U.P. Board of Revenue heard the revision and by order dated 30.01.2006 held that at the time of issue of recovery certificate one of the defaulter was dead and no notice was served upon the heir of dead defaulter, accordingly, the procedure as prescribed under Z.A. Rules for auction sale has not been followed. It has been further held that the auction purchaser was not necessary party in the application under Rule 285 I of UP Z.A. And L.R. Rules. On this finding the revision was dismissed and the defaulters were directed to deposit the entire dues along with excess amount of 5% relating to the recovery costs within a period of two months. Hence this writ petition was filed. On this finding the revision was dismissed and the defaulters were directed to deposit the entire dues along with excess amount of 5% relating to the recovery costs within a period of two months. Hence this writ petition was filed. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated by the respondents that the aforesaid amount has already been deposited, within two weeks of the order as directed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submits that in the application under Rule 285-I, date of death of Gajodhar has not been mentioned. A vague allegation was made that Gajodhar had died. On the basis this allegation, no inference can be drawn that notice was not served upon Gajodhar. The death of Gajodhar after service of notice or auction was immaterial. Naib-Tahsildar, in his report has clearly mentioned that notices in ZA Form-74 were personally served upon the land holders. Without giving the date of death of Gajodhar, the finding that Gajodhar was dead at the time of auction, is illegal. He further submits that in Notification no. 73/14 (2)/ 1980 -ra-1 dated 10.08.1981, it has been clarified that by notification dated 5.12.1968 all the Sub Divisional Officers were conferred jurisdiction of the Collector to be exercised under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 except under Section 198. Therefore the auction was confirmed by Sub Divisional Officer. Auction sale was fully valid and could not have been set aside. He further submits that there is no allegation that any material prejudice has been caused nor any finding has been recorded in this respect as required under Rule 285-I of UP Z.A. & L.R. Rules as such the auction could not have been set aside. Supreme Court in Radhy Shyam Vs. Shyam Behari Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2337 held that "what has to be established is that there was not only inadequacy was caused by reason of the material irregularity or fraud. A connection has thus to be established between the inadequacy of the price and the material irregularity". 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. Under the rule of pleading, the material fact is required to be pleaded and not the material particular. In paragraph 13 of the application it has been clearly mentioned that Gajodhar had died and notice was issued to a dead person. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. Under the rule of pleading, the material fact is required to be pleaded and not the material particular. In paragraph 13 of the application it has been clearly mentioned that Gajodhar had died and notice was issued to a dead person. In paragraph 15 it has been mentioned that auction was made for very low amount than the actual value of the property. In the light of this pleadings, Additional Commissioner recorded a finding that notice was not personally served upon Gajodhar who was dead on the date of issue of notice and the auction was held for very low amount than actual value of the property. Thus there was irregularity in service of the notice in Z.A. Form 74. In the report of Naib-Tahsildar (filed on page 11 of writ petition), it has been mentioned that Gajodhar was dead and notice was served upon his widow, who had refused to accept it. Argument of the counsel for the petitioners in this respect cannot be accepted. A part from the report of Naib-Tahsildar, the petitioners could not produce the notices to contradict the findings in this respect. 9. Additional Commissioner further found that the auction was held for very low amount than the actual value of the property. Thus, there is finding that the material prejudice has been caused to the defaulters in auction sale. The concurrent findings of fact recorded in respect of irregularity as well as material prejudice being caused to the defaulters cannot be re-assessed and re-examine by this Court. 10. Section 284 of the Act, authorizes the Collector to attach, lease and sell the immovable property. Section 284 (5) provides that if the Collector is satisfied that no suitable person is forthcoming to take the land on lease under sub-section (2), then notwithstanding any thing contained in this Act, he may sell the holding free from all encumbrances in such manner as may be prescribed. The procedure for sale has been provided under Rule 281. Rule 281 (2-A) again requires the Collector to auction the holding. 11. The procedure for sale has been provided under Rule 281. Rule 281 (2-A) again requires the Collector to auction the holding. 11. The word 'Collector' has been defined under Section 3 (4) of the Act as an officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an Assistant Collector of the first class empowered by State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act. By a notification dated 17.01.1976, Assistant Collectors of the first class, who are in-charge of the sub-division were empowered to discharge function of the Collector under Section 286, subject to condition that such sales are approved by the Collector. A Division Bench of this Court in Ram Awadh Tiwari Vs. Sudarshan Tiwari, 2008 (6) ADJ 776 held Sub-Divisional Officer, in-charge of the sub-division is authorize to conduct auction sale but power of confirmation vest in the Collector. This judgment has been followed in subsequent judgments in M/S R.D. Cements Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Collector, 2010 (3) ADJ 263 (DB), Rajendra Pal Singh Vs. Commissioner, 2012 (6) ADJ 396 and Chandan Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2013 (11) ADJ 718 . The counsel for the petitioners misread the notification dated 10.08.1981 by which previous notification dated 05.12.1968, by jurisdiction was conferred to Sub-Divisional Officers to exercise powers of the Collector was rescinded. Admittedly, in this case, auction dated 05.11.2001 was conducted by Naib Tahsildar and sale was approved by Sub-Divisional Officer on 11.12.2001. Thus there was material irregularity in conducting auction. 12. It is stated by the counsel for the contesting respondents that respondents -5 and 6 have deposited the excess amount than the actual dues. The contesting respondents may move an application before the Collector within a period of two weeks for refund of the excess amount. The Collector shall verify the aforesaid fact and direct for refund of the excess dues within another period of one month. 13. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed.