JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Ajit, who has appeared for and filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 5 and 6, the contesting respondents in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the respondent n. 2 and the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the respondent no. 4. 3. The facts of the case are that the father of the respondents 5 and 6 took a loan from the Bank of Baroda. On this loan remaining unpaid, recovery proceedings were initiated and certain land belonging to the father of the respondents was attached and put to auction. The father of the petitioner was the auction purchaser in the auction held on 16.01.1992. After the auction was held, the father of the contesting respondents filed an objection, which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 30.07.1993. The said order was challenged by means of a revision before the Board of Revenue. This revision was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.1998. The contesting respondents thereafter preferred a writ petition no. 28870 of 1998. This writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2010. 4. It appears that, thereafter, the contesting respondents filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the auction sale in favour of the petitioner was void. This suit is numbered as 192 of 2010. It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that no interim order is operating in the suit. 5. The petitioner aggrieved by the fact that no sale certificate had been issued, filed a writ petition being writ petition no. 17561 of 2014. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2014 directing the A.D.M. to proceed in accordance with law and to decide the claim of the petitioner. The A.D.M, thereafter remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the dispute, on its merits vide his order dated 20.03.2015. 6. In pursuance of this order of remand the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 01.06.2015 dismissed the representation/application of the petitioner holding that since a civil suit challenging the auction proceedings was pending consideration and also because an application for recall of the order passed in writ petition no. 6. In pursuance of this order of remand the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 01.06.2015 dismissed the representation/application of the petitioner holding that since a civil suit challenging the auction proceedings was pending consideration and also because an application for recall of the order passed in writ petition no. 28870 of 1998 was pending before this Court, there was no justification for issuing the sale certificate. 7. Hence, this writ petition challenging the aforesaid two orders dated 20.03.2015 and 01.06.2015 respectively. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the auction sale in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest was duly confirmed by the Commissioner while rejecting the objection filed by the respondents by his order dated 30.07.1993. 9. Since, the auction sale had been duly confirmed and the objections filed by the respondents had been rejecting, the sale certificate was necessarily required to be issued to the petitioners who were the auction purchasers in view of the Rule 285-J of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. The second submission made is that this Court, while disposing of a writ petition no. 17561 of 2014 on 08.12.2014, had directed the A.D.M. to consider the application/representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as regards the issuance of the sale certificate. It was therefore, the A.D.M., the respondent no. 3, who was required to pass orders. Therefore, his order of remand is illegal and liable to be set aside. 10. In so far as order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, respondent no. 4 is concerned, it has been submitted that the findings returned that the auction sale in favour of the petitioner, had not been confirmed is contrary to the record as also contrary to the findings recorded by this Court while dismissing writ petition no. 28870 of 1998. 11. He has further submitted that this Court in its order dated 11.05.2010 passed in writ petition no. 28870 of 1998 has categorically recorded that the auction sale had been confirmed by the Commissioner and that the petitioners were in possession over the land in question, which was the subject matter of the auction sale. He therefore submits that both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and directions are liable to be issued for issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner. 12. He therefore submits that both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and directions are liable to be issued for issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner. 12. Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the auction sale in favour of the petitioner held on 16.01.1992 had not been confirmed by the Collector, who alone was competent to have confirmed the same. 13. The next submission is that prior to the confirmation, the petitioner cleared the dues of the bank. The loan stood repaid and this fact was duly confirmed by the bank and, therefore, the auction sale must necessarily fail. He therefore contends that no sale certificate can be issued in favour of the petitioner. In any case, since the sale has not been confirmed, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. He further submitted that the findings returned by the Commissioner in his order dated 30.07.1993, while rejecting the objection of the respondents to the auction sale, does not amount to confirmation of the sale. The Commissioner was not the competent authority to confirm the sale which could have been confirmed only by the Collector. The Collector was required to pass an order recording his subjective satisfaction as regards the issues mentioned in Rule 285-J. He has required to record his satisfaction that the purchase of the land, which was the subject matter of the auction, would not violate Section 154 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act provides that no transferee can acquire land by sale or gift, if on account of such sale or gift, the land held by him alongwith land purchased or gifted would exceed 12.50 acres. 14. The last submission made by Sri K. Ajit is that during the intervening period and subsequent to the auction sale in favour of the petitioner, the village where the land in dispute is situated, came under consolidation operations by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holding Act. This notification was issued in 1997. The consolidation operations were closed by issuance of a notification under Section 52 of the said Act in the year 2010. This notification was issued in 1997. The consolidation operations were closed by issuance of a notification under Section 52 of the said Act in the year 2010. On account of the intervening consolidation operations, the identity of the land in question has changed and, therefore, no sale certificate can be issued in favour of the petitioner. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the following three judgment: - 1. 2004 (96) R.D. 530 ? Babu Ali and others Vs. Dukkhi and others. 2. 1997 (88) R.D. 583 ? Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. State of U.P. And others. 3. 1989 (1) SCC 101 ? Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur. 15. Relying upon the third judgment Sri K. Ajit has submitted that the judgment of this Court in writ petition no. 28870 of 1998 dated 15.05.2010, having failed to take into consideration Rule 285-M of the Rules, the same must be held to be per incurium. The judgment in the case of Shanti Devi has been cited in support of the contention that the Collector while confirming an auction sale has to satisfy himself that the purchasers did not contravene Section 154, which necessarily means that there should be application of mind by the authority concerned. 16. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 17. From a perusal of the pleadings as also upon a consideration of the rival submissions made at the Bar, it emerges for three points necessarily require consideration in this writ petition: - i. Whether the auction sale in favour of the petitioner was confirmed. ? ii. Whether the petitioner is in possession over the land which was subject matter of the auction sale. ? iii. Whether a sale certificate can be issued in favour of the petitioner even though the identity of the land which was subject matter of the auction sale has changed on account of the intervening consolidation operations. ? 18. For deciding the points 1 and 2 framed above, it would be necessary to refer to the earlier judgment by this Court dated 11.05.2010 passed in writ petition no. 28870 of 1998. A copy of this judgment is available on record as Annexure 5. ? 18. For deciding the points 1 and 2 framed above, it would be necessary to refer to the earlier judgment by this Court dated 11.05.2010 passed in writ petition no. 28870 of 1998. A copy of this judgment is available on record as Annexure 5. This writ petition had been filed challenging the orders passed by the Board of Revenue as also the order rejecting the objections filed by the respondents under Rule 285-I of the Rules. In this judgment, the Court has categorically recorded "that it is not established that no notice was served on the father of the petitioners" and also that no illegality or irregularity was committed in the conduct of the auction sale. The Court further recorded that "the findings recorded by the two courts below are essentially findings of fact. Sri M.A. Qadir, learned Senior Counsel in spite of his best efforts, could not point out any legal or factual error therein, and, therefore, no interference is called for." 19. The plea of the contesting respondents in the instant writ petition that they had cleared the dues was also considered in the earlier writ petition. It is also clear that this aspect was raised in the earlier writ petition by means of a supplementary affidavit. By this very same supplementary affidavit it appears that the point of change in identity of the land in question on account of consolidation proceedings was also raised and after hearing the parties on this issue, judgment was reserved. Subsequently, a supplementary affidavit was filed and the matter was listed for further hearing. 20. The court in its judgment has categorically recorded that at the time of further hearing, only one point, namely the issue of confirmation of the sale was pressed. While considering this plea, the court observed that the Additional Commissioner, while rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner's father under Rule 285-I, had observed that the order dated 16.01.1992 is confirmed which occasions that the auction dated 16.01.1992 was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 30.07.1993. On this finding, the submission made on behalf of the contesting respondents was found to be meritless. In such view of the matter and in view of the categorical findings returned by this Court in its order dated 11.05.2010, the same issue cannot be reagitated. On this finding, the submission made on behalf of the contesting respondents was found to be meritless. In such view of the matter and in view of the categorical findings returned by this Court in its order dated 11.05.2010, the same issue cannot be reagitated. The judgment of this Court not having challenged any further, the same has attained finality and is binding upon the parties. It is therefore not open for the respondents to submit either that this auction sale or its confirmation was not correct or was in any way, vitiated. 21. In so far as the question of the identity of the land having changed, on account of consolidation operations, although no specific finding has been returned in the judgment dated 11.05.2010, but it is abundantly clear that this plea was raised as it finds a mention in the said judgment. However, on a subsequent date this ground had not been pressed. This fact clearly emerges from a perusal of the order which categorically recorded that on the adjourned date, only the point of confirmation of the sale was pressed. The contesting respondents have therefore, given up this point of an earlier occasion and it is open for them to raise it afresh at a subsequent stage. 22. The only other point that survives of consideration is as to whether the judgment of this Court passed in the earlier petition is per incurium having failed to take note of the provisions contained in Rule 285-M of the Rules. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents primarily is that it is the Collector who alone is competent to confirm the auction sale. This Court in its judgment dated 11.05.2010 has held that since the auction sale was confirmed by the Commissioner which is an authority higher in rank to the Collector, there was no illegality therein. It has accordingly repelled the submission made. 23. In my considered opinion, the said finding not having been challenged further, is binding upon the parties. 24. Moreover, this court while hearing the instant writ petition is not setting in appeal over a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench. 25. For this reason alone I do not find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 26. 24. Moreover, this court while hearing the instant writ petition is not setting in appeal over a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench. 25. For this reason alone I do not find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 26. Since, the auction sale has been held to be confirmed and since in the earlier petition it was the categorical case of the respondents that the petitioners in the instant writ petition were forcibly cultivating the land, which was subject matter of auction sale, the submission that the petitioners are not in possession, also cannot be accepted. 27. The respondent no. 3 has refused to issue a sale certificate on two grounds; first being the pendency of a recall application to recall the order dated 11.05.2010, passed in the writ petition no. 28870 of 1998. This recall application has already been dismissed by me vide order dated 1.08.2015. In so far as the second ground regarding pendency of a suit for cancellation of the auction sale as being void is concerned, it is not in dispute that there in no interim order operating in the said suit. Therefore, in my considered opinion, one the auction sale has been confirmed, it is not open for the respondents to refuse to issue the sale certificate in favour of the petitioners. 28. Accordingly and in view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 20.03.2015 and 01.06.2015 are set aside. A mandamus is issued to the respondents 3 and 4 to issue the sale certificate in favour of the petitioners forthwith. 29. However, in the facts circumstances of the case, there shall be order as to costs.