JUDGMENT : Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the respective parties. 2. Under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India is an order dated 28.06.2018, passed by the Collector, Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby he has cancelled the auction sale held on 28.03.2018 in respect of Khasra Plot No. 1429 Ka, having an area of 0.162 hectare (17400 Sq.ft. and rice mill) belonging to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 3. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.07.2018, passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, whereby he has rejected the sale objection preferred by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the auction sale dated 28.03.2018 in respect of the aforesaid property on the ground that since the District Collector, Lakhimpur Kheri had already cancelled the auction sale dated 28.03.2018, as such sale objection filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has been rendered in fructuous. 4. By way of amendment, a further prayer has been made by the petitioner to direct the respondents to refund one-fourth of the bid amount i.e. Rs.34,47,750/- said to have been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid auction sale. 5. A Recovery Crtificate appears to have been issued by the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation for recovering an amount of Rs.1,32,26,175/-as arrears of land revenue from the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, on the basis of which the property in question was auctioned on 28.03.2018. 6. The petitioner participated in the said auction and offered the highest bid of Rs.1,37,91,000/-. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/-on 28.03.2018 i.e. on the date of auction at the fall of hammer. However, as per requirement of Rules, he failed to deposit three-fourth amount of the bid within the time as stipulated in the Rules. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from depositing a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-on 28.03.2018, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.13,47,750/-on 04.04.2018. 7. The auction proceedings against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were held under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from depositing a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-on 28.03.2018, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.13,47,750/-on 04.04.2018. 7. The auction proceedings against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were held under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Section 194 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that on the expiration of thirty days from the date of sale, in case no application is made either under Section 192 or Section 193, or if such application has been made and rejected by the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case may be, the Collector shall confirm the sale. Section 192 provides a remedy of making application to set aside the sale on deposit of arrears, whereas Section 193 provides for a remedy of making application to the Commissioner to set aside the sale for irregularity or mistake in the auction proceedings. Sections 192, 193 and 194 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are extracted herein below: “192 Application to set aside the sale on deposit of arrears.-(1) Any person whose holding or other immovable property has been sold under this Chapter may, at any time within thirty days from the date of sale, apply to the Collector for setting aside the sale, on his depositing, in the office of the Collector or at the district treasury or sub-treasury- (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to one percent of the purchase money; and (b) for payment on account of the arrear, the amount specified in the sale proclamation, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation, have been paid on that account; (c) the cost of the processes of sale including the collection charges, if any. (2) If the amount has been deposited in accordance with sub-section (1) the Collector shall set aside the sale. (3) Where a person has applied for setting aside the sale under this section, he shall not be entitled to make or prosecute an application under section 193. 193 Application to set aside sale for irregularity.- (1) At any time within thirty days from the date of sale, the defaulter or the auction purchaser or any other person whose interests are affected by such sale, may apply to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of any material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it. (2) No sale shall be set aside under sub-section (1), unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. (3) Subject to revision in the Revenue Board the order of the Commissioner under this section shall be final. 194 Confirmation of sale.-(1) On the expiration of thirty days from the date of sale, if no application is made under section 192 or section 193, or if such application has been made and rejected by the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case may be, the Collector shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (2), confirm the sale. (2) Where in a sale of immovable property made under this Chapter, the amount of purchase money- (a) exceeds rupees fifty lakh; or (b) is less than the reserve price or the amount of arrears specified in the sale proclamation, then the Collector shall report the matter to the Commissioner, who may confirm the sale or may pass such orders as he thinks fit. (3) Every order of the Collector or the Commissioner under this section shall be final. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit one-fourth of the bid amount offered by him on the same day i.e. on the date of auction. One-fourth of the bid amount offered by the petitioner comes out to be Rs.34,47,750/-, whereas petitioner had deposited, on the date of auction i.e. on 28.03.2018, only a sum of Rs.21,00000/-. He deposited a sum of Rs.13,47,750 on 04.04.2018. The requirement of Sections 189, 190 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are that the auction purchaser will deposit immediately twenty five percent of the amount of the bid and in default of such deposit, the property shall be forthwith re-sold and further that such person shall be liable for the expenses incurred on the first sale and any deficiency in price occurring on re-sale, and the same may be recovered from him by the Collector as if the same were an arrear of land revenue. 9. 9. Section 190 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that the balance amount of the bid offered by the auction purchaser shall be paid by the purchaser on or before the fifteenth day from the date of the sale in the office of the Collector and in case of default the property shall be re-sold and deposit made under Section 189 shall be forfeited to the State Government. 10. As observed above, admittedly one-fourth of the bid amount was not deposited by the petitioner on the date of auction i.e. on 28.03.2018, as such the District Collector has rightly not confirmed the same by means of the impugned order passed by him and has thus rightly cancelled the auction sale held on 28.03.2018. It appears that against the auction sale dated 28.03.2018, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had preferred a sale objection under Rule 25-I of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 which are akin to the provisions contained in Section 193 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 11. The Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow by passing the impugned order dated 25.07.2018 has, thus, rejected the sale objection preferred by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for the reason that the auction sale dated 28.03.2018 was already cancelled by the Collector on the ground that the petitioner had failed to comply with the provisions contained in Section 189 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, inasmuch as he had failed to deposit twenty-five percent of the bid amount on the date of auction. The Commissioner has, thus, rejected the sale objection by the impugned order observing therein that sale objection had been rendered infructuous. 12. Since the Collector has cancelled the auction sale by passing impugned order on account of non-depositing of twenty-five percent of the bid amount on the date of auction which is mandatory in terms of the provisions contained in Section 189 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the consequence of default whereof is also provided in the said provisions itself, hence I do not see any illegality in the order passed by the Collector whereby he has cancelled the auction sale held on 28.03.2018. The Commissioner has also rightly rejected the sale objection filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 having been rendered in-fructuous for the reason that auction sale itself was set aside by the Collector. 13. The Commissioner has also rightly rejected the sale objection filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 having been rendered in-fructuous for the reason that auction sale itself was set aside by the Collector. 13. Accordingly so far as the first two prayers made in this petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 28.06.2018 and 25.07.2018, passed by the Collector and the Commissioner are concerned, I do not find any good ground to grant the said prayers. 14. The petitioner has also, by way of amendment, made a prayer seeking direction to the respondents for return of the amount of Rs.34,47,750/-said to have been deposited by him in the auction proceedings. 15. As observed above, Section 189 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 mandates the auction purchaser to deposit twenty-five percent of the amount of the bid immediately. It also provides for the consequences of default in such deposit, according to which, in case of default, the property shall be forthwith re-sold and auction purchaser, in such eventuality, shall be liable for the expenses incurred for sale. He shall also be liable to pay deficiency in price occurring on re-sale and the said amount may be recovered from the auction purchaser by the Collector as the arrear of land revenue. 16. Similarly Section 190 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that balance amount of the bid offered by the auction purchaser shall be paid/deposited by him on or before the fifteenth day from the date of the sale and in case of default, the property shall be re-sold and the deposited amount under Section 189 shall be forfeited to the State Government 17. Sections 189 and 190 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are quoted herein under:- “189 Deposit by purchaser and re-sale on default.- (1) The person declared to be the purchaser shall be required to deposit immediately twenty-five per cent of the amount of his bid, and in default of such deposit, the property shall be forthwith re-sold, and such person shall be liable for the expenses incurred on the first sale and any deficiency in price occurring on re-sale, and the same may be recovered from him by the Collector as if the same were an arrear of land revenue. (2) A deposit under sub-section (1) may be made either in cash or by a demand draft (issued by a scheduled bank) or partly in cash and partly by such draft. Explanation. -For the purposes of this section, the expression ‘demand draft’ includes a banker’s cheque. 190 Deposit of purchase money.-The balance amount of the purchase money shall be paid by the purchaser on or before the fifteenth day from the date of the sale in the office of the Collector or at the district treasury or sub-treasury, and in case of default- (a) the property shall be re-sold; and (b) the deposit made under section 189 shall be forfeited to the State Government”. 18. In the instant case, admittedly on the date of auction i.e. 28.03.2018 the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- whereas twenty-five percent of the bid amount offered by him comes out to be Rs.34,47,750/-as the bid offered by the petitioner was of a sum of Rs.1,37,91,000/-. 19. The petitioner ought to have deposited the entire amount of Rs.34,47,750/-on 28.04.2018 itself. He deposited only Rs.21,00,000/-on 28.03.2018 and Rs.13,47,750/-on 04.04.2018. In terms of the provisions of Section 189, on non-deposit of twenty-five percent of the bid amount which comes out to be Rs.34,47,750/-, further steps ought to have been taken by the Sale Officer to put the property to re-auction, however, instead of doing so, it appears that the authorities permitted the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.13,47,750/- on 04.04.2018. 20. As is clear from a perusal of Section 189 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the consequence of non-deposit of twenty-five percent of the bid amount is also given therein, according to which, in such a situation auction purchaser is liable for the expenses incurred on the first sale and also for the deficiency in price occurring on re-sale. Ideally the Sale Officer ought to have immediately recovered the amount of expenses incurred in the first sale from the petitioner and he ought to have immediately put the property to re-auction and in case of deficiency in price occurring on re-sale, such deficient amount ought to have recovered from the petitioner. However, instead of following the provision of Section 189, it appears that revenue authorities of the Tehsil concerned permitted the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.13,47,750/- on 04.04.2018. 21. However, instead of following the provision of Section 189, it appears that revenue authorities of the Tehsil concerned permitted the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.13,47,750/- on 04.04.2018. 21. Section 190 speaks of certain consequences, which ensue on non-depositing of three-fourth amount of purchase money, within the time stipulated therein i.e. on or before fifteenth day from the date of sale. The consequences of non-depositing of three-fourth amount as provided in Section 190 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is that the deposit made under Section 189 shall be forfeited by the State Government. 22. The question in this case which requires consideration is as to whether the deposit as stipulated under Section 189 was made by the petitioner or not. 23. It is only when the petitioner is found to have made a deposit under Section 189, the question of forfeiture of the said amount to the State Government shall arise. The provision of Sections 189 and 190 are distinct. Section 189 provides that one-fourth amount of the bid offered by the auction purchaser shall be deposited on the date of auction. It also provides for consequences in default thereof. Section 190 provides for deposit of three-fourth amount to be made by the auction purchaser on or before fifteenth day from the date of sale and consequences of non-depositing of three-fourth amount is that deposit made under Section 189 shall be forfeited. 24. In the instant case, deposit of Rs. 21,00,000/-made by the petitioner cannot be said to be complete deposit under Section 189 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as three-fourth amount of bid amount was Rs. 34,47,750/-, whereas the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/-only on the date of auction. The balance amount of Rs. 13,47,750/-, in fact, was permitted to be deposited by the authorities on 04.04.2018, whereas neither the said amount could have been deposited by the petitioner, nor any such amount ought to have been permitted to be deposited on 04.04.2018. By operation of Section 189 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the property ought to have been put to re-auction and the petitioner ought to have been made liable for the expenses incurred on the first sale and any deficiency in price, if the same would have occurred in re-sale. 25. By operation of Section 189 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the property ought to have been put to re-auction and the petitioner ought to have been made liable for the expenses incurred on the first sale and any deficiency in price, if the same would have occurred in re-sale. 25. There is nothing on record to suggest that the property was put to auction on non-depositing of one-fourth amount of the bid offered by the petitioner. Instead of putting the property in question to re-auction immediately on non-depositing of one-fourth amount of the bid offered by the petitioner, the sale officer/authorities permitted the petitioner to deposit rest of the amount of Rs. 13,47,750 on 04.04.2018. There is no provision which permits the Sale Officer or any other authority to extend the time for making deposit of twenty-five percent of the bid amount offered by the auction purchaser. Accordingly, it is clear that on one hand the petitioner failed to make deposit in terms of Section 189 and on the other hand, the authority/Sale Officer instead of putting the property in question to re-sale, appears to have permitted the petitioner to deposit Rs. 34,47,750/-on the date subsequent to the date of auction i.e. on 04.04.2018. Failure on the part of the petitioner for not depositing one-fourth amount on the date of bid offered by him would result in depriving the petitioner of the property which is said to have been purchased by him in the auction. 26. The question which needs consideration at this juncture is as what is the amount which is to be refunded to the petitioner or to be forfeited to the State Government. 27. As observed above, the deposit made under Section 189 is liable to be forfeited to the State Government in case the auction purchaser fails to make deposit of three-fourth amount of the bid offered by him and in the instant case, admittedly, three-fourth amount of the bid offered by the petitioner has not been deposited, however, it is also relevant to observe that the petitioner had deposited only a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/-and not the entire amount i.e. Rs. 34,47, 750/- on the date of auction. 21,00,000/-and not the entire amount i.e. Rs. 34,47, 750/- on the date of auction. The liability of the petitioner for the expenses incurred on the first sale and any deficiency in price occurring on re-sale is to be fastened on him as a consequenes of non-depositing of twenty-five percent of the bid amount in terms of Section 189 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 28. The amount deposited by the petitioner on the date of auction is Rs.21,00,000/-. He had deposited a sum of Rs. 13,47,750/-on the date subsequent to the date of auction i.e. on 04.04.2018. The Sale Officer has also completely failed to observe the provisions of Section 189 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby he was required to put the property to re-auction. 29. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also to the provisions contained in Sections 189 and 190 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, this Court is of the considered opinion that forfeiture to the State of Rs. 21,00,000/-deposited by the petitioner on the date of auction sale, is warranted. However, since the petitioner had not deposited the sum of Rs.13,47,750/-on 28.03.2018 (the date of auction) rather he deposited this amount on 04.04.2018 and there has been failure on the part of the Sale officer/Tehsil Authorities of not putting the property in question to re-auction, it would not be appropriate to forfeit the said amount of Rs.13,47,750/-. 30. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to refund the sum of Rs.13,47,750/-to the petitioner within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The amount of Rs.21,00,000/-deposited by the petitioner on the date of auction shall be forfeited to the State Government. 31. There will be no order as to costs.