JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arun Kumar Verma and Shri D.K. Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioner impeaching the order dated 30.4.2016, passed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 18.9.2015, passed in Writ Petition No. 2547 (M/B) of 2004 filed by the mother of the petitioner has been disposed of with the direction to refund the bid amount deposited by the petitioner’s mother in the auction held on 9.3.2004. 3. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are that in realization of certain bank dues, property of the defaulter, Sita Ram was put to auction on 9.3.2004. The mother of the petitioner, Smt. Sanwari Devi was the highest bidder, who deposited ¼th of the bid amount on the date of bid itself and she also deposited 3/4th of the bid amount well within the time prescribed for the said purpose under the rules. 4. On an application said to be preferred by one Shri Pawnesh Kumar, son of defaulter Sita Ram, some report appears to have been called for by the Sub Divisional Officer, who after perusal of the said report, approved the same. The application preferred by Shri Pawnesh Kumar was to the effect that he is ready to purchase the property for an amount higher than the amount offered in the auction by Smt. Sanwari Devi. The Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar on the said application reported that the property was auctioned for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- on 9.3.2004 in favour of Smt. Sanwari Devi. However, since Shri Pawnesh Kumar had made an application that he was ready to purchase the property for a higher sum, the auction may be cancelled. On the said report, the Sub Divisional Officer approved the same and did not pass any written reasoned order for cancellation of the sale. 5. Pursuant to the cancellation of the auction done by the Sub Divisional Officer on 31.3.2004, the property was again put to auction on 30.4.2004, however, on the said date, no bidder was present and hence, it was postponed and held again on 7.5.2004. 5. Pursuant to the cancellation of the auction done by the Sub Divisional Officer on 31.3.2004, the property was again put to auction on 30.4.2004, however, on the said date, no bidder was present and hence, it was postponed and held again on 7.5.2004. In the auction held on 7.5.2004, the highest bidder was one Shri Ram Singar Maurya, who offered his bid of Rs. 2,00,000/- and after being successful in the bid, deposited 1/4th of the bid amount on the same day, however, he could not deposit rest of the 3/4th amount within the time stipulated in the rules which resulted in forfeiture of 1/4th amount deposited by Shri Ram Singar Maurya. The mother of the petitioner, Smt. Sanwari Devi appears to have moved an application on 13.4.2004 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalalpur to confirm the sale held in her favour on 9.3.2004 but when the sale was not confirmed, she approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2547 (M/B) of 2004, which was finally disposed of by this Court on 18.9.2015 with the direction that the application dated 13.4.2004 will be decided by the District Magistrate and while taking the decision under the said order, the District Magistrate shall also consider the validity of the order dated 31.3.2004 by which the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Officer had cancelled the auction sale even though the petitioner had deposited the entire bid amount. 6. It is in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 18.9.2015 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition that the impugned order has been passed. 7. The Collector while passing the impugned order has taken into account various provisions contained in U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, specially Rules 285(H), 285(I) and 285(A). The Collector has also taken into consideration certain pronouncements made by this Court in related matters and has concluded that the auction proceedings dated 9.3.2004 was conducted by Naib Tehsildar, who is not the authority competent in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 285(A) to make an auction sale under the rules. After concluding the aforesaid, the Collector has not approved the auction held on 9.3.2004 and has directed refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. 8. After concluding the aforesaid, the Collector has not approved the auction held on 9.3.2004 and has directed refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. 8. The bid-sheet of the auction sale held on 9.3.2004 is on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, perusal of which clearly reveals that the auction was made by the Naib Tehsildar/Sale Officer, Jalalpur and it has only been signed by the Sub Divisional Officer that, however, would not mean that the auction proceedings were conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer. The bid-sheet (Fard Nilam) clearly establishes that the entire auction proceedings were held by the Naib Tehsildar. 9. Rule 285-A of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules, 1952 clearly provides that every sale under Sections 284 and 286 shall be made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf. The Rule 285-A is extracted herein below : 285-A. Every sale under Sections 284 and 286 shall be made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf. No such sale shall take place on a Sunday or other gazetted holiday or until after the expiration of at least thirty days from the date on which the proclamation under Rule 282 was issued. The Collector may from time to time postpone the sale.” 10. The Collector while passing the impugned order has given a clear finding in this case that the Naib Tehsildar, who conducted the sale proceedings in the instant case, was not a person specially appointed by the Collector to conduct the sale. On the basis of analysis of certain judgments rendered by this Court, the Collector has, thus, concluded that the auction proceedings held on 9.3.2004 are vitiated for the reason that the auction was conducted by the authority not empowered under the Rules. It is on these grounds that the auction dated 9.3.2004 where the mother of the petitioner was the highest bidder has not been approved and the money deposited by the mother of the petitioner has been ordered to be refunded. 11. A perusal of the bid-sheets of the auction dated 9.3.2004 does not leave us in any doubt that the entire auction proceedings were conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, who under the Rules was not empowered to do so. 11. A perusal of the bid-sheets of the auction dated 9.3.2004 does not leave us in any doubt that the entire auction proceedings were conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, who under the Rules was not empowered to do so. The phrase occurring in Rule 285-A is “every sale under Sections 284 and 286 shall be made”. The phrase “auction sale shall be made” would mean not merely putting in signature by the authority; rather conducting the entire proceedings of the auction sale. 12. In the instant case, as observed above, the entire proceedings of the auction were conducted by the Naib Tehsildar and hence, it can be said that the auction was made by the Naib Tehsildar and not by the Sub Divisional Officer, who merely affixed his signature on the bid sheet. We do not find ourselves in disagreement with the findings recorded by the Collector while passing the impugned order in this regard. The auction sale dated 9.3.2004 being in clear violation of the Rules, has rightly not been confirmed and on the said ground no right can be said to have accrued in respect of the subject-matter of the auction sale in favour of either the mother of the petitioner or petitioner himself. To that extent, the writ petition cannot succeed. 13. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the possession of the property which was the subject-matter of the auction sale dated 9.3.2004 has not been given to the petitioner, the entire auction amount may be ordered to be refunded with interest to the petitioner. 14. To impress upon the Court for refund of the bid amount with interest, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 1/4th of the bid amount had been deposited by the petitioner’s mother on 9.3.2004 and rest of the 3/4th amount of the bid was deposited well within the time as stipulated in the Rules, hence, the petitioner is entitled to be refunded not only the bid amount but also the interest. 15. 15. After coming into force the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, with effect from 11.2.2016, all cases pending before the authorities before the commencement of Code, whether “in appeal, revision, review or otherwise” shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of appropriate law which in the present case would mean the provision contained in U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the reason that on alleged cancellation of the auction on 31.3.2004 mother of the petitioner had filed application before the Sub Divisional Officer for confirmation of sale on 13.4.2004 and on failure on the part of the Sub Divisional Officer to take any action on the said application, the petitioner’s mother had filed writ petition No. 2547 (M/B) of 2004. In this view, the protection of saving clause in terms of Section 231 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be available to the petitioner. 16. Under the scheme of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and rules framed thereunder, no authority is vested with the Sub Divisional Officer either to confirm or cancel the auction sale. There are two situations where an auction can be cancelled; firstly under Rule 285-H if the defaulter approaches the Collector with his willingness to deposit the entire amount of arrears against him, the sale can be cancelled by the Collector on such deposition to be made by the defaulter alongwith an additional sum of 5% of the value of the auction and secondly, in case the auction suffers from material irregularity in conducting and publishing the sale, the same cannot also be set aside on an appropriate application to be moved in this behalf before the Commissioner of the Division under Rule 285-I. Rule 285-L envisages a situation where the sale of any holding is set aside under Rule 285-H or 285-I and provides that in such an eventuality the purchaser shall be entitled to receive back his purchase money plus an amount not exceeding 5% of the purchase money as the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may determine. 17. In this case, the auction proceedings held in favour of the petitioner on 9.3.2004 have been cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer on 31.3.2004, as such cancellation of sale in this case is neither referable to Rule 285-H nor Rule 285-I, hence, applicability of the provisions contained in Rule 285-L remains doubtful. 17. In this case, the auction proceedings held in favour of the petitioner on 9.3.2004 have been cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer on 31.3.2004, as such cancellation of sale in this case is neither referable to Rule 285-H nor Rule 285-I, hence, applicability of the provisions contained in Rule 285-L remains doubtful. However, having said that, it is worth noticing that the Sub Divisional Officer did not have any jurisdiction or authority or power vested in him either by U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act or the rules framed thereunder to have cancelled the auction sale held in favour of the mother of the petitioner on 9.3.2004. Thus, both acts i.e. holding of the auction proceedings by an incompetent authority (Naib Tehsildar) and cancellation of the auction sale dated 9.3.2004 on 31.3.2004 by another incompetent authority (Sub Divisional Officer), are completely unlawful because of which bid amount deposited by the petitioner’s mother remained withheld in the Government treasury for 12 long years. The Collector in the impugned order has also held that the order dated 31.3.2004 could not have been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and has, while passing the impugned order, cancelled the same. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, the fault clearly lies with the revenue authorities because of which petitioner’s money could not be utilized by him which he could have used for his own benefit. Since the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not envisage payment of interest in a situation as the present case has presented before us where auction sale has been cancelled by an incompetent authority after having been conducted by another incompetent authority, we feel it appropriate to award damages to the petitioner for the illegal acts of the respondents. For assessing and quantifying the damages to be paid to the petitioner, we can be guided by and recourse can be had to the provisions contained in Rule 285-L which provides refund of the entire bid amount in case of cancellation of the auction sale under Rule 285-H and Rule 285-L alongwith an additional amount not exceeding 5% of the purchase money. 19. Thus, without interfering in the impugned order, so far it refuses to confirm the auction sale dated 9.3.2004, this writ petition is disposed of in view of the alternative relief claimed for by the petitioner in this petition as relief No. lI. 19. Thus, without interfering in the impugned order, so far it refuses to confirm the auction sale dated 9.3.2004, this writ petition is disposed of in view of the alternative relief claimed for by the petitioner in this petition as relief No. lI. The petitioner will, thus, be entitled to be refunded the entire bid amount deposited by his mother in the auction proceedings held on 9.3.2004 and shall also be paid interest at the rate of 5% per annum in addition to the bid amount by way of damages. The entire amount under this order shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the authority concerned. The Collector, Ambedkar Nagar shall ensure compliance of this order. 20. However, there will be no order as to costs.