JUDGMENT : RAJAN ROY, J. 1. The substitution of legal heirs of petitioner no. 2-Mewa Lal has been allowed but has not been incorporated. 2. Let the same be incorporated during the course of the day. 3. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Janardan Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2/1, 2/2 and 2/3. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the land in dispute bearing Plot nos. 1399 and 1400 was mortgaged by the opposite party no. 2- Ram Charan Lal with the U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. He could not redeem the mortgage and repay the loan, therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank in terms of the U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Act, 1964 as amended from time to time. In the recovery proceedings an auction was held of the aforesaid land and the petitioners were the highest bidders. It appears that either no objections were filed by the opposite parties or the said objections were rejected. Consequently, the aforesaid auction sale was held. 5. It is the contention of Shri Janardan Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 that 15 days time had been granted to the opposite party to deposit the amount but before expiry of the said period the auction was held, however, there is nothing on record to show that any proceedings were adopted by the opposite party no. 2 challenging the auction sale under Rule 39 of the U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Rules, 1971 or under any other provision of law. 6. Be that as it may, the sale was confirmed under Rule 40 of the Rules, 1971 and accordingly it became absolute. Consequently, under Rule 43 of the Rules, 1971 the sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners which was registered on 15.12.1978. Thereafter, the petitioners sought the mutation of their name in the records under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as, the consolidation operations had already set in motion. Objection was filed by the opposite party no. 2 which did not find favour with the Consolidation Officer and same were rejected. Accordingly the name of the petitioners was recorded in respect of the aforesaid land. Being aggrieved the opposite party no. Objection was filed by the opposite party no. 2 which did not find favour with the Consolidation Officer and same were rejected. Accordingly the name of the petitioners was recorded in respect of the aforesaid land. Being aggrieved the opposite party no. 2 filed an appeal before the S.O.C. challenging the order dated 19.05.1979 of the C.O. which was dismissed by the S.O.C. on 26.09.1979. Being aggrieved the opposite party no. 2 filed a revision before the D.D.C. which was allowed on 17.02.1981 and the orders of the C.O. and S.O.C. were set-aside. Consequently, the name of the opposite party no. 2 was ordered to be recorded in respect of the land in question again. 7. The only objection raised in the revision was firstly that inspite of 15 days time having been granted by the Director of the Bank for depositing the amount the auction was held before expiry of the said period. Secondly, no permission had been taken from the S.O.C. under Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act, 1953 before undertaking the auction sale. Thirdly, no permission had been taken under Section 157-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before effecting such sale in favour of a none Scheduled Caste person as the opposite party no. 2 the bhoomidhar was a Scheduled Caste person. It is these very three grounds which have been reiterated before this Court. The revisional Court allowed the revision on the ground of violation of Section 157-A of the Act, 1950 and Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act, 1953. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, the first and foremost feature which strikes the Court is that no attempt was made by the opposite party no. 2 to challenge the auction sale under Rule 39 of the Rules, 1971 and the sale was confirmed under Rule 40 and thereafter, the sale certificate was issued under Section 40 thereof. The possession was handed over to the petitioners and they are in possession. As the order of revision had been stayed by this Court, therefore, it is said that the petitioners have continued to be recorded in respect of the land in question. The possession was handed over to the petitioners and they are in possession. As the order of revision had been stayed by this Court, therefore, it is said that the petitioners have continued to be recorded in respect of the land in question. It is worthwhile to mention that the validity of the auction sale could not be the subject matter of consideration under Section 12 of the Act, 1953, as, the scope of Section 12 is with regard to rights and interest in respect of the bhoomidhari lands viz-a-viz the basic year entry. 9. As regards the contention that permission under Section 5(c)(ii) has not been obtained the Court has perused the said provision and has no hesitation in saying that the said provision would not apply to a forced sale under a distraint in terms of the Act, 1989 and the Rules, 1971 made there under for recovery of an amount due to the Bank in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. A bare reading of the said provision leaves no doubt that the requirement therein is for the tenure holder to obtain the previous permission from the S.O.C. before he wants to transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof in the consolidation area. This provision does not enjoin a third party, other than the bhoomidhar, having a charge over the property consequent to the loan extended and the mortgage made in respect of the land, to seek any permission. In this regard reference may be made to a decision reported in Smt. Bhagwati Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors., (1983) RevDec 201 wherein it has been held that the restriction contained in Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act, 1953 relates to a voluntary sale by the tenure holder and not in respect of a Court sale in pursuance to an execution proceeding. The same analogy applies in this case also. 10. As regards the other contention based on Section 157-A of the Act, 1950 is concerned, the said provision intents to protect the Schedule Caste persons from exploitation or fraudulent transaction under undue influence, coercion etc. The transaction at hand is not such a transaction but is a transaction permissible in law for recovery of dues. 10. As regards the other contention based on Section 157-A of the Act, 1950 is concerned, the said provision intents to protect the Schedule Caste persons from exploitation or fraudulent transaction under undue influence, coercion etc. The transaction at hand is not such a transaction but is a transaction permissible in law for recovery of dues. Here also the provision applies to a bhoomidhar, Asami belonging to a Schedule Caste, who shall have the right to transfer any land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person not belonging to a Schedule Caste, with the previous approval of the Collector. This does not apply to a distraint sale for recovery of dues by a Bank in accordance with law as is the case at hand. In this regard also there is a direct decision on the point reported in Ram Saran Vs. 1st Additional District Judge Rampur and Ors.,1981 RevDec 252 wherein it has been held that the said restriction of prior permission from Collector applies to voluntary sale by the Bhoomidhar but not to forced sale undertaken under the coercive steps and distraint prescribed under the Act, 1989 and the Rules, 1971 referred hereinabove. The principle contained therein applies to this case also. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of the D.D.C., which suffers from absence of due and proper application of mind to the purport and scope of the aforesaid provisions of law, is liable to be set-aside. It is accordingly quashed. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law. 12. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.