ORDER : D.K. Upadhyay, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and learned counsel representing the respondent no. 6. 2. Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 03.04.2014, passed by the Board of Revenue in a revision petition preferred by the respondent no. 6 against the order dated 19.09.1994, passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, whereby sale objections filed by the petitioners under Rule 285-I of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") against the auction sale held on 03.08.1993 were allowed and the auction dated 03.08.1993 was set aside. However, the revisional court below by the impugned order dated 03.04.2014 has set aside the said order dated 19.09.1994 passed by the Commissioner. 3. The facts of the case, which can be discovered from the pleadings made by the respective parties in this case, are that one Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay said to have fallen in arrear of some amount in respect of which financial assistance was provided to him by Khadi Gram Udyog Board, Allahabad. On account of default committed by him in repayment of the amount, a recovery certificate was issued by the Collector, in pursuance whereof recovery proceedings were initiated against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Hanuman Prasad Tiwari. It has been stated that Hanuman Prasad Tiwari was not provided the financial assistance, he rather only stood guarantee. However, on issuance of the recovery certificate, it appears that the tehsil authorities proceeded against the petitioners' property, namely, a house which was put to auction on 03.08.1993. The highest bid offered in the said auction held on 03.08.1993 was to the tune of Rs. 1,51,000/- which was offered by the respondent no. 6. It is on record and rather has been admitted by the respondent no. 6 that he had deposited 1/4th of the bid amount, which comes out to Rs. 37,750/-, on the date of auction itself i.e. on the fall of hammer on 03.08.1993, however, rest of the 3/4th amount of the bid offered by respondent no. 6 was not deposited within 15 days from the date of auction; rather it was deposited by him on 03.09.1993. 4. As observed above, there is no dispute to the fact that respondent no. 6 had not deposited 3/4th of the bid amount in terms of the Rules. 6 was not deposited within 15 days from the date of auction; rather it was deposited by him on 03.09.1993. 4. As observed above, there is no dispute to the fact that respondent no. 6 had not deposited 3/4th of the bid amount in terms of the Rules. The petitioners accordingly filed sale objections under Rule 285-I of the Rules before the Commissioner of the Division who considered the matter in detail and passed the order dated 19.09.1994 whereby he set aside the auction held on 03.08.1993. At this juncture itself, it may also be noticed that pursuant to the auction sale held on 03.08.1993 the sale was confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 23.09.1993 in pursuance whereof sale certificate was also issued on 05.10.1993 in favour of respondent no. 6. 5. The Board of Revenue, however, on the revision petition preferred by the respondent no. 6 against the order dated 19.09.1994, passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad has set aside the order dated 19.09.1994. 6. The question, which falls for consideration in this case is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the admitted position that respondent no. 6 had not deposited 3/4th of the bid amount within the statutory period prescribed under the Rules, such a sale will be vitiated or not. 7. The Commissioner by his order dated 19.09.1994 has set aside the auction sale held on 03.08.1993 on various counts. One of the reasons given by the Commissioner while passing the order dated 19.09.1994 is based on non-deposition of 3/4th amount of the bid offered by the respondent no. 6 within the statutory period and as such the Commissioner has held that in such a situation, the sale shall be vitiated. Apart from the aforesaid reason, the Commissioner has also given certain other reasons including that the property was sold for a throw away price and further that there has been some manipulation and back dating in the file pertaining to the auction sale. Apart from the aforesaid reason, the Commissioner has also given certain other reasons including that the property was sold for a throw away price and further that there has been some manipulation and back dating in the file pertaining to the auction sale. The Commissioner while allowing the sale objection filed by the petitioners has also observed that ordinarily recovery of an amount due ought to have been made from the defaulter first and only in case of failure of recovery of the due amount from the defaulter that the recourse could have been taken by the tehsil authorities for making recoveries from the guarantor i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely Hanuman Prasad Tiwari. 8. There is no doubt, neither is there any ambiguity regarding the legal position as to the consequence of non-deposit of 1/4th and 3/4th amount of bid offered by the highest bidder within statutory period provided under the Rules. The consequences of non-deposit within the statutory period is also given in the rules. In this respect Rule 285-D and Rule 285-E of the Rules are relevant to be quoted, which are extracted hereunder: "285-D. 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 land shall forthwith be again put up and sold and such person shall be liable for the expenses attending the first sale and any deficiency of price which may occur on the re-sale which may be recovered from him by the Collector as if same were an arrear of land revenue. 285-E. The full amount of purchase money shall be paid by the purchaser on or before the fifteenth day from the date of the sale at the district treasury or any sub-treasury and in case of default the deposit, after the expenses of sale have been defrayed there from, shall be forfeited to Government and the property shall be re-sold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold". 9. A perusal of the afore-quoted provisions clearly reveal that it is mandatory that the highest bidder will deposit 25% of the amount of his bid on the same day i.e. on the fall of hammer. 9. A perusal of the afore-quoted provisions clearly reveal that it is mandatory that the highest bidder will deposit 25% of the amount of his bid on the same day i.e. on the fall of hammer. According to Rule 285-D, in default of such deposit the property shall forthwith again be put to sale and such highest bidder shall be liable for the expenses attending the first sale and any deficiency of price which may occur on the resale which is recoverable from him by the Collector as if the same were an arrears of land revenue. Thus, Rule 285-D makes it clear that in case of failure to make deposit 25% of the bid amount, the property so sold is to be put to re-auction and recovery of certain amount to the extent of deficiency etc. between the price offered in the first sale and the price which may be fetched in the subsequent sale is also to be made from the highest bidder. 10. Similarly, Rule 285-E of the Rules as afore-quoted also mandates that the full amount of purchase money shall be paid by the purchaser on or before the 15th day from the date of sale. It further provides that in case of default the deposit so made shall be forfeited by the Government and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. The language applied in Rule 285-E of the afore-quoted Rule makes the provision mandatory. The requirement of making deposit of the full amount within 15 days from the date of sale is mandatory also for the reason that consequence of default is also mentioned in the rule itself. 11. Without entering into any other ground which might have been made the basis of the order passed by the Commissioner, I am of the considered opinion that auction sale dated 03.08.1993 was vitiated for want of observance of the provisions contained in Rule 285-E of the Rules. As has already been observed above, there is no dispute that 3/4th amount of the bid offered by the respondent no. 6 in this case was deposited beyond a period of 15 days from the date of auction. In such a situation, I have no hesitation to hold that auction dated 03.08.1993 was vitiated. 12. As has already been observed above, there is no dispute that 3/4th amount of the bid offered by the respondent no. 6 in this case was deposited beyond a period of 15 days from the date of auction. In such a situation, I have no hesitation to hold that auction dated 03.08.1993 was vitiated. 12. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has sought to mention certain developments which are said to have been taken place subsequent to filing of the writ petition. In this regard he has submitted that this court while entertaining this petition had passed an order on 02.12.2014 providing therein that the petitioners will not be dispossessed and on the same day i.e. on 02.12.2014 itself in a writ petition filed by the respondent no. 6, namely, Writ-C No. 65026 of 2014, a Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad had directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Allahabad to conclude the proceedings initiated under the notice dated 07.10.2014 which was issued to the petitioners requiring them to hand over the possession of the property to respondent no. 6 which was auction sold on 03.08.1993. On account of two conflicting orders having been passed by this Court, one in Writ-C No. 65026 of 2014 and the other in this writ petition on the same day i.e. on 02.12.2014. on a review application, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order modifying the order dated 02.12.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 65026 of 2014 to the extent that the Sub Divisional Officer while concluding the proceedings under the notice dated 07.10.2014 shall keep in mind the order passed in this petition i.e. the order dated 02.12.2014. It is pursuant to the said order dated 31.07.2015, whereby the review application by the Division Bench of this Court was disposed of, that Sub Divisional Officer passed an order on 05.08.2015 observing therein that in view of two conflicting orders passed by this Court, one at Allahabad and the other at Lucknow, it will not be appropriate to hand over the physical possession of the property in question to the respondent no. 6 and accordingly the Sub Divisional Officer, vide his order dated 05.08.2015 deferred the proceedings for handing over possession pursuant to the auction sale held on 03.08.1993. 13. 6 and accordingly the Sub Divisional Officer, vide his order dated 05.08.2015 deferred the proceedings for handing over possession pursuant to the auction sale held on 03.08.1993. 13. I do not see any impact of the proceedings which were drawn by the Sub Divisional Officer while issuing notice dated 07.10.2014 and subsequent thereto pursuant to the order passed by this Court so far as legality/illegality of the auction sale dated 03.08.1993 is concerned. 14. As already observed above, the auction sale was clearly vitiated for want of observance of the provision contained in Rule 285-E. As a matter of fact, before confirming the sale, the Sale Officer ought to have considered all the aspects of the matter i.e. as to whether 3/4th amount of the bid by the auction purchaser i.e. respondent no. 6 was deposited within the time envisaged under Rule 285-E or not and it is only after satisfying himself that the said 3/4th amount of the bid was deposited by the auction purchaser within the time that the sale could have been confirmed. 15. In the instant case, 3/4th amount of the bid was not deposited within the time stipulated therefor and hence any order or any auction subsequent to the auction sale will be vitiated. Merely on account of confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate which is based on the auction dated 03.08.1993, which is clearly vitiated and illegal, no right on the respondent No. 6 can be said to have accrued. 16. The Board of Revenue while hearing the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 6 against the order of Commissioner dated 19.09.1994 has completely ignored the aforesaid aspect of the matter and the legal position and has not even discussed the impact of non-deposition of the bid amount in terms of the provision contained in Rule 285-D and 285-E of the Rules. The Board of Revenue appears to have got swayed by the observations made by the learned Commissioner in his order dated 19.09.1994 to the effect that in fact the actual defaulter was working in the Railways and recovery ought to have been made from his salary etc., however, Board of Revenue has completely failed to appreciate the fact that the order dated 19.09.1994 passed by the Commissioner is not based on the said sole ground. 17. 17. As discussed above, the main reason indicated by the learned Commissioner in his order dated 19.09.1994 is that the auction sale held on 03.08.1993 was vitiated for the reason that the respondent No. 6 who is the auction purchaser had failed to make deposit of 3/4th amount of the bid offered by him within time, which is in violation of the provision contained in Rule 285-E of the Rules. 18. The provision contained in Rule 285-D and Rule 285-E of the Rules are akin to the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 84 and 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are also quoted herein below: "84. Deposit by purchaser and re-sale on default.-(1) On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty-five per cent, on the amount of his purchase-money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold. (2) Where the decree-holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set-off the purchase-money under rule 72, the Court may dispense with the requirements of this rule. 85. Time for payment in full of purchase-money.-The full amount of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property. Provided that, in calculating the amount to be so paid into Court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under rule 72. 19. The language applied in these provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are almost akin to the language available in Rule 285-D and Rule 285-E of the Rules. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1954 SC 349 , the provision of Rule 285-E is mandatorily to be followed and any departure therefrom vitiates the auction sale. 20. Thus, for the reasons disclosed above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 21. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. Resultantly, the order dated 03.04.2014, passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 36(Sale)/LR/1994-95, District Allahabad, Vinod Kumar Goswami Vs. Hanuman Prasad, as is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 22. 20. Thus, for the reasons disclosed above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 21. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. Resultantly, the order dated 03.04.2014, passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 36(Sale)/LR/1994-95, District Allahabad, Vinod Kumar Goswami Vs. Hanuman Prasad, as is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 22. The Sub Divisional Officer/Sale Officer/Collector, Allahabad is directed to proceed afresh in terms of the provision contained in Rule 285-E of the Rules, 1952. 23. Though, the Court is conscious of the legal position that liability of making payment of any amount due of the defaulter or the guarantor is joint and several, however, in terms of principle of equity, it is always desirable to make recovery of any such amount from the actual defaulter first and it is only in failure of any such attempt to recover the amount from the defaulter that adequate coercive measures may be taken against the guarantor. 24. Accordingly, Sub Divisional Officer/Sale Officer/Collector, Allahabad while proceeding further in this matter shall bear the aforesaid observation in mind. 25. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 at this juncture prays that appropriate direction may be issued to the authorities to refund the amount deposited by the respondent No. 6 pursuant to the auction sale dated 03.08.1993. The consequence of default committed under Rule 285-D and Rule 285-E are given therein. In the instant case, there is no dispute that respondent No. 6 has deposited 1/4th amount of the bid offered by him i.e. Rs. 37,750/- on the fall of hammer on 03.08.1993 itself. The default in this case is in respect of Rule 285-E. Accordingly, so far as this prayer of respondent No. 6 is concerned, the matter is left to the Sale Officer/Collector concerned to take appropriate decision in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 285-E of the Rules. If the amount deposited by the respondent No. 6 is to be refund to him, it shall be refunded within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 26. No order as to costs.