JUDGMENT : Petitioners had filed application under Rule 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) before the Commissioner, on 29.08.2000, challenging sale of land belonging to their grandfather in a public auction held on 22.04.1994. They had also challenged the order passed by S.D.M., Roorkee on 04.11.1996, whereby the auction sale of the said land was confirmed in terms of Rule 285- J of the aforesaid Rules. The said application was rejected by Commissioner, Garhwal Division vide order dated 29.04.2003. Petitioners challenged the order passed Commissioner, Garhwal Division in a Revision before Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Dehradun, which too was dismissed vide judgment & order dated 31.03.2006. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders impugned dated 29.4.2003 and 31.3.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 & 2 Annexed as Annexure No. 10 & 15 to the writ petition respectively. (ii) To issue an appropriate direction commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioners’ objection filed under Section 285 (i) on merits after granting him benefit of delay after allowing the Section 5 application.” 2. It is not in dispute that grandfather of the petitioners, namely, Banwari Lal had taken a loan of Rs. 9,000/- from State Bank of India, Branch Bhagwanpur (Haridwar) in the year 1986. In view of default in repayment of loan by him, a citation for recovery of Rs. 9,494.56 was issued against him under Section 279 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since the outstanding dues were not paid even after issuance of recovery citation, therefore, the land belonging to Banwari Lal was attached and sold in a public auction for Rs. 16,800/-. The public auction was held on 22.04.1994 and the sale was confirmed by S.D.M. under Rule 285-J of the aforesaid Rules vide order dated 04.11.1996 and Sale Certificate was issued to the auction purchaser (respondent no. 3) on 18.11.1996. The Sale Certificate is on record as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, which contains a recital that respondent no. 3 has been put in possession over purchased land. 3. 3) on 18.11.1996. The Sale Certificate is on record as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, which contains a recital that respondent no. 3 has been put in possession over purchased land. 3. After several years, petitioners filed an application on 29.08.2000 under Rule 285-I of aforesaid Rules before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, challenging the auction sale of the land on the ground that the auction was held behind their back without notice to them. They also challenged the order passed by S.D.M., Roorkee dated 04.11.1996, whereby sale was confirmed. In their application, petitioners contended that the borrower (Banwari Lal) had died on 26.05.1993, therefore, the auction proceedings held against a dead person are vitiated and the order confirming sale is also vitiated. They further contended that they acquired knowledge about the auction sale of the land only on 08.08.2020. Commissioner, Garhwal Division rejected petitioners’ application vide order dated 29.04.2003 on the ground that similar objection under Rule 285-I filed by petitioners earlier was rejected on the ground of delay by Commissioner, Saharanpur Division vide order dated 06.07.1999, therefore, second application filed by them for the same relief, would not be maintainable. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, petitioners approached Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal by filing Z.A. Revision No. 5/2003-04. Learned Revisional Court by a detailed judgment dated 31.03.2006 dismissed the Revision inter-alia holding that Rule 285-I provides limitation period of only 30 days for making application against auction sale, while petitioners had filed such application after more than 5 years. 4. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 22.04.1994 when the land was put to auction, name of petitioners were recorded as tenure holder, therefore, the auction sale could not have taken place without notice to them. He further submits that, in the absence of any notice, petitioners could not exercise their right under Rule 285-H or 285-I of the aforesaid Rules. He further submits that since Ilam Chand (father of petitioners) had gone missing during lifetime of Banwari Lal (grandfather of petitioners), therefore, upon death of their grandfather on 26.05.1993, name of the petitioners was mutated in place of Banwari Lal in revenue records, as successor. 5. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the auction purchaser (respondent no. He further submits that since Ilam Chand (father of petitioners) had gone missing during lifetime of Banwari Lal (grandfather of petitioners), therefore, upon death of their grandfather on 26.05.1993, name of the petitioners was mutated in place of Banwari Lal in revenue records, as successor. 5. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the auction purchaser (respondent no. 3), however, submits that contention made on behalf of petitioners that their name was recorded as tenure holder upon death of their grandfather, is not correct. He further submits that there was no declaration made by any Civil Court regarding civil death of petitioners’ father (Ilam Chand) and, without such declaration, petitioners’ name could not have been mutated. He further points out that there is no material on record to show that names of petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhar in revenue records after death of their grandfather. Referring to various documents available on record, Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate appearing for respondent no. 3 submits that petitioners have mentioned different dates of death of their grandfather at different places. 6. Upon perusal of documents referred by learned counsel for respondent no. 3, this Court finds that date of death of Banwari Lal is different in different documents, inasmuch as, in the objection dated 29.08.2000 filed by petitioners before Commissioner, date of death of Banwari Lal is mentioned as 26.05.1993; whereas, in another document enclosed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, relied upon by petitioners, his date of death is mentioned as 15.12.1993; while, in the application dated 19.06.1999 filed by father of the petitioners (Ilam Chand) and uncle (Sewa Ram) under Rule 285-I of the aforesaid Rules before Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, date of death of Banwari Lal is mentioned as 10.02.1993. Perusal of the said application dated 19.06.1999, which is on record as Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit, belies the stand of the petitioners that their father Ilam Chand had gone missing during lifetime of Banwari Lal (their grandfather). 7. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate further submits that notice regarding public auction was given not only in the concerned village but also in all adjoining villages by beat of drums and also by announcement through loudspeaker from mosques and other religious places. 7. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate further submits that notice regarding public auction was given not only in the concerned village but also in all adjoining villages by beat of drums and also by announcement through loudspeaker from mosques and other religious places. He further submits that there is no provision for individual notice to the person in default, after service of recovery citation upon him and notice through beat of drums is sufficient. He further contends that petitioner could have deposited a sum equal to 5% of the purchase money with the Collector within 30 days of the date of sale for having the sale set aside. He further points out that under Rule 285-I, objection against auction sale can be filed before the Commissioner within 30 days and if no objection is filed within stipulated time, then the auction sale has to be confirmed under Rule 285-J of the Rules. 8. Section 279 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 lays down the modes of recovery of Government dues as arrears of land revenue, which is extracted below: “279. Procedure for recovery of an arrear of land revenue. – (1) An arrear of land revenue may be recovered by anyone or more of the following processes: (a) by serving a writ of demand or a citation to appear on any defaulter; (b) by arrest and detention of his person; (c) by attachment and sale of his movable property including produce; (d) by attachment of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due; (e) by lease or sale of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due; (f) by attachment and sale of other immovable property of the defaulter; and (g) by appointing a receiver of any property, movable or immovable of the defaulter. (2) The costs of any of the processes mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be added to and be recoverable in the same manner as the arrear of land revenue.” 9. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 framed under the said Act lay down the procedure for auction sale of immovable property for recovery of government dues. It provides certain rights to the person in default, whose property is put up for sale, in Rule 285-C, 285-H and 285-I of the said Rules. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 framed under the said Act lay down the procedure for auction sale of immovable property for recovery of government dues. It provides certain rights to the person in default, whose property is put up for sale, in Rule 285-C, 285-H and 285-I of the said Rules. For ready reference, Rule 285-A to Rule 285-N of the said Rules are reproduced 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. 285-B. No officer having any duty to perform in connection with any such sale, and no person employed by, or subordinate to, such officer shall, either directly or indirectly, bid for, acquire or attempt to acquire the property sold or any interest therein: Provided that where at any auction under Section 284 no bid is offered up to the amount of the arrear, for which the sale has been ordered, the Collector may bid upto the amount of such arrear. 285-C. If the defaulter pays the arrears in respect of which the land for other immovable property is to be sold, at any time before the day fixed for the sale, the person authorized to collect the amount in arrears or to the person appointed under Rule 285-A to conduct the sale, the sale officer, on being satisfied of the payment, shall stay the sale. 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 resale 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 the sale has been defrayed therefrom, shall be forfeited to Government and the property shall be re-sold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. 285-F. If the proceeds of the sale which is eventually made are less than the price bid by such defaulting purchaser, the difference shall be recoverable from him as if it were an arrear of the land revenue. 285-G. No sale after postponement under Rule 285-A, 285-D or 285-E in default of payment of the purchase money shall be made until a fresh proclamation he has been issued as prescribed for the original sale. 285-H. (1) Any person whose holding or other immovable property has been sold under the Act may, at any time within thirty day from the date of sale, apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in the Collector's office- (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to 5 per cent of the purchase money; and (b) for payment on account of the arrear, the amount specified in the proclamation in Z.A. Form 74 as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been paid on that account; and (c) the costs of the sale. On the making of such deposit, the Collector shall pass an order setting aside the sale: Provided that if a person applies under Rule 258-I to set aside such sale he shall not be entitled to make an application under this rule. (2) [* * *] 285-I. (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. (ii) [* * *] (iii) The order of the Commissioner passed under this rule shall be final. 285-J. On the expiration of thirty days from the date of the sale if on such application as is mentioned in Rule 285-H or Rule 285-1, has been made or if such application has been made and rejected by the Collector or the Commissioner, the Collector shall pass an order confirming the sale after satisfying himself that the purchase of land in question by the bidder would not be in contravention of the provisions Section 154. Every order passed under this rule shall be final. 285-K. If no application under Rule 215-I is made within the time allowed therefore, all claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale shall be barred: Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall bar the institution of a suit in the Civil Court for the purpose of setting aside a sale on the ground of fraud. 285-L. Whenever the sale of any holding or other immovable property is set aside under Rule 285-H or Rule 285-I, the purchaser shall be entitled to receive back his purchase money plus an amount not exceeding 5 per cent of the purchase money as the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may determine. 285-M. (i) After a sale of holding or other immovable property under the Act, has been confirmed in the manner aforesaid, the Collector shall put the person declared to be purchaser into possession of such property, and shall grant him a certificate to the effect that he has purchased the property to which the certificate refers and such certificate shall be deemed to be a valid transfer of such property, but need not be registered as a conveyance except as provided by Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908. (ii) The certificate shall state the name of the person declared at the time of sale to be actual purchaser, any suit brought or application made in a Civil or Revenue Court against the certified purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of another person not the certified purchaser, though by agreement the name of the certified purchaser was used shall be dismissed with costs. 285-N. When sale of property under the provisions of Section 286 has been confirmed, the proceeds of the sale shall be applied in first instance to the payment of any arrears, including costs incurred for the recovery thereof, due to the Government from the defaulter at the date of confirmation of the sale, whether the arrears are of revenue or sums recoverable as arrears of revenue; and in the second place if the sale took place for the recovery of amount recoverable as an arrears of revenue but not due to Government: to the payment of that amount including costs as aforesaid; and the surplus, if any, shall be paid to the person whose property has been sold; or if the property sold was help in shares then the co-sharers, collectively or according to the amount of their recorded interests, at the discretion of the Collector.” 10. Admittedly, the recovery citation issued by Tehsildar for recovery of Rs. 9494.54 was duly served upon the petitioners. Since petitioners did not exercise the right conferred by Rule 285-C, 285-H & 285-I, therefore, the sale was confirmed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee vide order dated 04.01.1996. The sale confirmation order has been passed in consonance with the provision contained in Rule 285-J of the Rules. Rule 285-K provides that in case of failure to file application under Rule 285-I within prescribed time, then all claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale shall be barred and the only remedy available to an aggrieved person would be to file a Civil Suit for having the sale set aside. Rule 285-J also provides that order confirming the sale shall be final. 11. Since petitioners slept over their right for considerably long period of time and filed application under Rule 285-I only on 29.08.2000 and, during interregnum, rights of respondent no. 3 had crystalized, therefore, learned Commissioner, Garhwal Division rightly rejected the said application. The rejection order indicates that in the year 1999 also, petitioners had moved similar application before Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, which too was rejected on the ground of delay. 12. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3 submits that the Sale Certificate, as contemplated under Rule 285-N, was issued in favour of his client on 18.11.1996 after giving physical possession of the land in question. 12. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3 submits that the Sale Certificate, as contemplated under Rule 285-N, was issued in favour of his client on 18.11.1996 after giving physical possession of the land in question. He further points out that during consolidation proceedings, a new Chak in lieu of the land purchased by him in public auction has been allotted to respondent no. 3. This fact is corroborated by the document enclosed as Annexure No. 3 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 3, which is copy of Form CH-23 issued by the Consolidation Authorities in terms of provisions contained in Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and Rules framed hereunder. 13. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners then contends that it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to have followed provision contained in Section 284 (2) of the Act. Section 284 (2) of the said Act is reproduced below: “284. Attachment, lease and sale of holding. - (1) ……. (2) Where any holding is so attached the Collector may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, let out the holding, for such period not exceeding ten years commencing from the first day of July next following as he deems fit, to any person, other than the defaulter, who pays the whole of the arrear due on the holding and agrees to pay the same amount of land revenue during this period of the lease as has been payable by the defaulter in respect of the holding immediately preceding its attachment.” 14. Section 284 deals with attachment, lease and sale of holding. Sub-section (2) of Section 284 provides that the Collector may let out the holding attached by him under sub-section (1) for such period not exceeding 10 years, if by such letting out, the amount sought to be recovered can be realised. However, sub-section (5) of Section 285 provides that if Collector is satisfied that no suitable person is forthcoming to take the land on lease, then notwithstanding anything in the Act, he may sell the holding free from all encumbrances and appropriate the proceeds in satisfaction of the arrears, and refund the excess, if any, to the defaulter. 15. Learned Standing Counsel referred to a document enclosed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, which is a report submitted by Revenue Authorities to the Collector. 15. Learned Standing Counsel referred to a document enclosed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, which is a report submitted by Revenue Authorities to the Collector. Perusal of the report indicates that the soil was removed from the land in question for preparing mud bricks in a Brick Kiln, due to which market value of the land has diminished substantially and no one is ready to purchase the said land for more than Rs. 16,880/-. He thus submits that since the citation issued by Tehsildar was for recovery of Rs. 9494.54, therefore, the said amount could not have been realised by letting out the land in question, therefore, the decision to hold public auction cannot be faulted. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned Standing Counsel. 16. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of petitioners based on Section 284 of the Act, is without force. Due to removal of the top soil of the land in question, the land became unfit for agricultural purposes. In view of the report submitted by the Revenue Authorities, the decision taken by Collector to sell the land cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 17. Petitioners have challenged the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Garhwal and Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal on 29.04.2003 and 31.03.2006 respectively. The order passed by Divisional Commissioner calls for no interference, as he has taken note of similar objection filed by petitioners in the year 1999, which was rejected on the ground of delay by Commissioner, Saharanpur Division. Petitioners did not challenge the order passed by Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, which thus attained finality. Another application filed by petitioners before Commissioner, Garhwal Division was also barred by limitation, as Statute provides limitation period of 30 days for filing application under Rule 285-I. The Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal has passed a detailed order while dismissing petitioners’ revision. This Court concurs with the reasoning given by Chief Revenue Commissioner. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition. 18. In prayer no. (ii), petitioners have sought a direction to Commissioner, Garhwal Division to condone the delay in filing application under Rule 285 (i) and to decide petitioners’ application on merits. This Court concurs with the reasoning given by Chief Revenue Commissioner. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition. 18. In prayer no. (ii), petitioners have sought a direction to Commissioner, Garhwal Division to condone the delay in filing application under Rule 285 (i) and to decide petitioners’ application on merits. In view of the statutory provisions as discussed above, no such direction can be issued and benefit of Section 5 Limitation Act cannot be granted in the present case where the Statute provides limitation period of 30 days only. 19. In such view of the matter, any interference with impugned order would be unwarranted. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. However, petitioners shall be at liberty to avail the remedy as provided in proviso to Rule 285-K of the aforesaid Rules.