JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Manu Saxena, for the petitioner, Standing Counsel, for State of U.P., Sri V.K. Singh, for contesting respondent-5 and Sri Rohit Agrawal for respondent-6. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Commissioner (respondent-2) dated 9.1.1998, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Rule 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), for setting aside auction sale dated 28.10.1991 and Board of Revenue U.P. (respondent-1) dated 17.4.2001, dismissing revision of the petitioner from the aforesaid order. 3. The petitioner, who started business in the name and style of ‘Printonics’, took commercial loan of Rs. 4,98,000/- from District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Meerut (respondent-6) (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) at the rate of 12.5% per annum interest. The aforesaid amount was paid between 23.12.1988 to 3.2.1989 for purchase of plants and machineries. The loan agreement was executed on 26.9.1989. Under the loan agreement, the petitioner hypothecated plant and machineries and mortgaged premises No. 298 Western Kutcheri Raod, Meerut with the Bank. Loan was payable within a period of 7 years, in monthly installments of Rs. 6310/- from January 1990. The petitioner committed default in payment of installments, therefore, the Bank issued a Recovery Certificate in January, 1991 for recovery of Rs. 5,73,269.10 + interest + other charges to the Collector Meerut, as arrears of Land Revenue. Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) Meerut through letter dated 28.1.1991 sent the Recovery Certificate to Tahsildar for realization of the amount, who issued citation dated 31.1.1991 to the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount. The petitioner filed an application dated 5.2.1991 before Tahsildar, for grant of time up to 15.2.1991, as according to him, the amount of all installments had been deposited up to date and he was persuading the officials of the Bank to recall the Recovery Certificate. Sub-Divisional Officer, however, issued arrest warrant to arrest the petitioner on 7.2.1991 and arrested him on 14.2.1991 and detained in civil imprison. Sub-Divisional Officer issued auction notice in ZA Form 74 dated 16.2.1991, (served upon the petitioner through pasting on his door), fixing 8.4.1991 for auction of mortgaged property and other property. 4. The petitioner filed a suit (registered as Civil Suit No. 298 of 1991) for permanent injunction, restraining the Bank and Revenue Authorities from realization of the aforesaid amount as arrears of Land Revenue. 4. The petitioner filed a suit (registered as Civil Suit No. 298 of 1991) for permanent injunction, restraining the Bank and Revenue Authorities from realization of the aforesaid amount as arrears of Land Revenue. VIIth Additional Civil Judge, Merrut granted ad-interim injunction dated 2.5.1991, restraining the Bank and Revenue Authorities from proceeding with the Recovery Certificate. Interim order was extended time to time and confirmed on 31.8.1991 after hearing the parties. The Bank filed an appeal (registered as FAFO No. 852 of 1991) from the order dated 31.8.1991. This Court, by order dated 24.9.1991 stayed operation of the order dated 31.8.1991. 5. Thereafter a fresh auction notice in ZA Form 74 was allegedly issued on 28.9.1991 fixing 28.10.1991 for auction. The petitioner was again detained in civil imprison on 1.10.1991 and was released on 14.10.1991. The petitioner filed an application before this Court for staying recovery proceeding alongwith Counter-affidavit in FAFO No. 852 of 1991. This Court vide order dated 22.10.1991 granted two weeks time to the counsel for the Bank to file Rejoinder-affidavit and stayed arrest and auction sale of the property of the petitioner in the recovery proceeding on the condition of deposit of entire amount of installments due up to 30.9.1991, within a period of one month. 6. The petitioner alleged that copy of the order dated 22.10.1991 was filed by his counsel before Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar on 24.10.1991 alongwith his letter. It was also sent to Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar on 27.10.1991 at 8.15 hours through telegram. In spite of interim order of High Court dated 22.10.1991, auction was held by Naib Tahsildar on 28.10.1991. Although minimum price of the properties was fixed to Rs. 5 lakhs but highest bid of Rs. 2,01,551/- was accepted. 7. The petitioner filed a application (registered as Case No. 9 of 1991-92) under Rule 285-I of the Rules, on 19.11.1991 for setting aside the auction sale dated 28.10.1991. The case was heard by Commissioner (respondent-2), who by order dated 9.1.1998 held that the property situated in Non-ZA area can also be auctioned for realization of arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Act. ZA Form 74 was issued under the signatures of Sub-Divisional Officer on 28.9.1991 fixing 28.10.1991 for auction thus 30 days time was given. The case was heard by Commissioner (respondent-2), who by order dated 9.1.1998 held that the property situated in Non-ZA area can also be auctioned for realization of arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Act. ZA Form 74 was issued under the signatures of Sub-Divisional Officer on 28.9.1991 fixing 28.10.1991 for auction thus 30 days time was given. Although in ZA Form 74, date of its issuance has not been mentioned but on its back side note dated 24.10.1991 contains the date of issuance. Notice of auction was served by pasting on the door of the petitioner. Copy of the order of High Court was served on 28.10.1991 at 4.00 PM while auction had already held at 11.00 AM. As stay order was not communicated at the time of auction as such auction was valid. Loan was granted to the petitioner with the help of NABARD as such it was under State Sponsored Scheme and recovery certificate was validly issued under the provisions of U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. On these findings, it has been held that there was no irregularity in auction and the application of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2 Sale/1997-98) from the aforesaid order before the Board of Revenue U.P. The Board of Revenue by order dated 17.4.2001 dismissed the revision. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. It may be mentioned that the petitioner also filed a review application before Board of Revenue U.P., which was rejected on 30.7.2010. 8. In the meantime, the petitioner deposited Rs. 18920/- on 1.11.1991, i.e. entire amount of installments due up to 31.10.1991, in compliance of the order dated 22.10.1991 and Rs. 50,000/- on 24.1.1992 in compliance of the order of this Court dated 11.12.1991, passed in FAFO No. 852 of 1991. Thereafter, plaint of Civil Suit No. 289 of 1991 was returned by order dated 8.12.2000, for referring the dispute to Arbitrator under Section 70 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as FAFO No. 1815 of 2000) before this Court from the aforesaid order, in which also interim order dated 20.3.2001 has been granted. This writ petition was dismissed in default on 10.11.2010 and restored on 1.12.2010 thereafter again dismissed in default on 19.12.2011 and restored on 6.4.2012. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as FAFO No. 1815 of 2000) before this Court from the aforesaid order, in which also interim order dated 20.3.2001 has been granted. This writ petition was dismissed in default on 10.11.2010 and restored on 1.12.2010 thereafter again dismissed in default on 19.12.2011 and restored on 6.4.2012. In the meantime auction sale was confirmed on 30.11.2010 by Sub-Divisional Officer, who by order dated 2.1.2012, directed for issue of sale certificate to Rajat Kumar Tyagi (respondent-5) who supplied requisite stamp papers on 6.1.2012, on which sale-deed was prepared. However, when the fact relating to interim order dated 20.3.2001 passed in FAFO No. 1815 of 2000 was brought to the notice of Sub-Divisional Officer, he by order dated 13.1.2012 recalled earlier orders. 9. This Court, by order dated 21.9.2011 directed the parties to settle their dispute outside the Court. Thereafter, the Bank offered for One Time Settlement vide letter dated 28.10.2013 by depositing Rs. 9,96,000/-, which was deposited by the petitioner on 10.1.2014 and the Bank issued ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the petitioner on 27.1.2014 subject to the final orders passed in this writ petition as well as FAFO No 825 of 1991 and FAFO No 1815 of 2000. 10. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 284 and 286 of the Act, the Collector alone has jurisdiction to initiate recovery proceeding and conduct auction sale as held by this Court in M/s. R.D. Cements Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector, 2010 (3) ADJ 263 (DB), Rajendra Pal Singh v. Commissioner, 2012 (6) ADJ 396 and Chandan Singh v. State of U.P., 2013 (11) ADJ 718 . While in the present case, recovery proceeding was initiated by Sub-Divisional Officer and auction was held by Naib Tahsildar, which is without jurisdiction. Civil Court granted ad-interim injunction dated 31.8.1991, restraining the Bank and Revenue Authorities from realizing the amount in the recovery proceeding. Although this Court vide order dated 24.9.1991 stayed the operation of the order dated 31.8.1991 but injunction order was not set aside as such Revenue Authorities had no jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery proceedings. As recovery proceeding was postponed as such fresh proclamation was required to be issued under Rule 285-G of the Rules but no fresh proclamation was issued or published in the news papers. Subsequently an undated proclamation was brought on record. As recovery proceeding was postponed as such fresh proclamation was required to be issued under Rule 285-G of the Rules but no fresh proclamation was issued or published in the news papers. Subsequently an undated proclamation was brought on record. On the back of this proclamation, Naib Tahsildar made endorsement that proclamation was issued on 28.9.1991 and was served upon the petitioner by pasting its copy on his door. This Court, vide order dated 22.10.1991, stayed arrest and auction sale of the property of the petitioner in the recovery proceeding. The copy of the order dated 22.10.1991 was filed by the counsel for the petitioner before Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar on 24.10.1991 alongwith his letter. It was also sent to Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar on 27.10.1991 at 8.15 hours through telegram. In spite of interim order of High Court dated 22.10.1991, auction was held by Naib Tahsildar on 28.10.1991 alleging that stay order was served at 4.00 P.M. Although minimum price of the properties was fixed to Rs. 5 lakhs but highest bid of Rs. 2,01,551/- was accepted. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Board of Revenue U.P., 2006 (3) ADJ 224 and State of U.P. v. M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd., 2008(7) ADJ 377 (SC), in which it was held that without making any attempt to serve the notice on the actual defaulter, service on the chowkidar was not sufficient. Rakesh Kumar Goel v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 263, and Atar Singh v. State of U.P., 2013 (1) ADJ 43 (DB), in which it was held that auction notice must be published in news papers. Mahabir Cold Storage & Ice Factory v. Board of Revenue U.P., 2013 (31) LCD 316, and Ramesh Chanda Gupta v. State of U.P., 2014 (1) ADJ 524 , in which it has been held that during continuance of stay order, auction sale was illegal. Notice for sale must indicate minimum estimated value. 11. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court by order dated 22.9.1991 stayed operation of ad-interim injunction order dated 31.8.1991 as such recovery proceeding revived. Thereafter fresh proclamation was issued on 28.9.1991. Notice for sale must indicate minimum estimated value. 11. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court by order dated 22.9.1991 stayed operation of ad-interim injunction order dated 31.8.1991 as such recovery proceeding revived. Thereafter fresh proclamation was issued on 28.9.1991. Interim order dated 22.10.1991 granted by this Court was communicated to Naib Tahsildar on 28.10.1991 at 4.00 PM while auction was already held at 11.00 AM, in which highest bid of the father of respondent-5 was accepted. After dismissal of the writ petition in default on 10.11.2010, auction sale was confirmed on 30.11.2010 by Sub-Divisional Officer, who by order dated 1.12.2010, directed to issue sale certificate. Again Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 2.1.2012 directed for issue of sale certificate to Rajat Kumar Tyagi (respondent-5), who supplied requisite stamp papers on 6.1.2012, on which sale-deed was prepared. However, when the fact relating to interim order dated 20.3.2001 passed in FAFO No. 1815 of 2000 was brought to the notice of Sub-Divisional Officer, then he by order dated 13.1.2012 stayed earlier orders. Orders of Commissioner and Board of Revenue do not suffer from any illegality. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Sadashiv Prasad Singh v. Harender Singh, JT 2014 (1) SC 481, in which it has been held that auction sale cannot be set aside on equitable ground. 12. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. First point arises for consideration is as to whether ad-interim injunction order dated 31.8.1991 had lost its significance after passing stay order dated 24.9.1991 by this Court. Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Assn., AIR 1992 SC 1439 , held that while considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. Thus ad-interim injunction order dated 31.8.1991 has not lost its significance after passing stay order dated 24.9.1991 by this Court. 13. This Court, vide order dated 22.10.1991, stayed arrest and auction sale of the property of the petitioner in the recovery proceeding. The copy of the order dated 22.10.1991 was filed by the counsel for the petitioner before Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar on 24.10.1991 alongwith his letter, which are being denied by the Revenue Authorities. It was also sent to Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar on 27.10.1991 at 8.15 hours through telegram. Service of telegram is accepted but in this respect it is alleged that stay order was served on Naib Tahsildar on 28.10.1991 at 4.00 PM, while auction was held at 11.00 AM. Telegram was sent on 27.10.1991 at 8.15 hours. This might have been delivered to addressee on the same day. In spite of interim order of High Court dated 22.10.1991, auction was held by Naib Tahsildar although the Bank was party in the appeal and had knowledge of stay order from very beginning. Sub-Divisional Officer is the auctioning authority. Stay order was served upon him well within time or in any case before approval of the auction. 14. 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. 15. The procedure for sale has been provided under Rule 281. Rule 281 (2-A) again requires the Collector to auction the holding. 15. 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 17.1.1976, Assistant Collectors of the first class, who are incharge 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 v. 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. Admittedly in this case, auction dated 28.10.1991 was conducted by Naib Tahsildar and sale was approved by Sub-Divisional Officer on 30.11.2010. Thus there was material irregularity in conducting auction. The application of the petitioner under Rule 285-I was illegally rejected. At present entire dues of the Bank has been satisfied by the petitioner. The recovery proceedings has become infructuous. 16. In view of aforesaid discussions, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders of Commissioner (respondent-2) dated 9.1.1998, Board of Revenue U.P. (respondent-1) dated 17.4.2001, auction sale dated 28.10.1991 and its approval dated 30.11.2010 are set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs. —————