JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sudhanshu Pratap Singh for the respondent no. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities. 2. Against the order of the Commissioner dated 14.10.2015 purported to have been passed upon the objection filed by the respondent no. 4 in proceedings under Section 285 (I) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, against auction of the property of the respondent no. 4, the Commissioner by the impugned order has held that there were various discrepancies in the auction and has set aside the auction. The petitioner is auction purchaser. The claim of the petitioner is that the application has been filed with considerable delay and petitioner has invested some amount in the land besides the amount paid in the auction. 3. I have considered the submissions of the counsel. 4. The petitioner has remedy of filing a revision against the order of the Commissioner, which is provided in the statute itself. As such, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petitioner may pursue the remedy available to him. 5. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.