JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Dwivedi, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.8. 2. In the present case, a recovery proceedings of about Rs.34 lakhs as arrears of land revenue was initiated against the petitioners by putting the cold storage on auction. 3. Initial, three attempts for auction were failed on 18.5.1989, 28.5.1989 and 8.6.1989 respectively either on ground of insufficient bid or highest bidder failed to deposit requisite 1/4th of bid amount within the stipulated time. 4. During these proceedings, highest bid was about Rs.22 lakhs. Fourth sale proclamation was issued on 20.2.1990 (allegedly on 2.2.1990) and bids were invited on 6.3.1990. Highest bid offered was of Rs.16.80 Lakhs i.e. less than the earlier bids amount. Highest bid was of contesting respondent no.8. 5. Twenty five percent amount of said bid was deposited on the same day, by way of a cheque encashed on same day also as shown from records of the Bank. 6. At this stage, petitioners i.e. auction debtors have filed objections before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, under Rule 285 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,1952 (hereinafter called the ‘Rules 1952’) on 19.4.1990. 7. During the pendency of said application on 8.5.1990, auction sale was confirmed. On 27.4.1991/7.5.1991, Commissioner, Kanpur has rejected the aforesaid objections. Relevant paragraphs being Nos.11 to 14 of the order is reproduced hereinafter: 8. Aforesaid order was challenged at behest of the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.4.1996 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 285-(D)- "The person declared to be the purchaser shall be required to deposit immediately twenty five percent 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 --------- which may be subsequently sold." 9. Aforesaid orders are impugned in the present writ petition. 10. Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Pandey appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that objections filed by the petitioners to auction sale were not considered and despite violation of procedure prescribed for conducting the auction proceedings, objections were rejected by the Commissioner as well as by the Board of Revenue. He further referred Rule 285 (D) of Rules, 1952 that auction purchaser was mandatorily required to deposit immediately twenty five percent of the amount of accepted bid. However, since cheque deposited on the date of auction was encashed later on, therefore, it was a violation of said provision. He further submitted that default of deposit of 1/4th amount of auction bid has a serious consequence as aforesaid provision provides that on 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. For reference, Rule 285 (D) of Rule 1952 is mentioned hereinafter: "285-D. The person declared to be the purchaser shall be required to deposit immediately twenty five percent 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." 11. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that auction amount should be reasonable. However, in the present case, earlier a bid of Rs.22 lakhs was found to be insufficient, therefore, to accept a bid of lesser amount i.e. about 16 lakhs, was not reasonable and for that the procedure for widespread information about the auction proceedings were not diligently carried out and therefore number of persons who participated in the bid process were very less. He further referred Rule 285 (E) of Rules, 1952 that auction purchaser shall has to deposit entire amount before 15 th day of the date of sale and admittedly in the present case, remaining amount of sale was deposited much after the expiry of 15th day, therefore, mandatory condition was not complied with, accordingly the auction sale is liable to be declared void-ab-initio. 12. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions has referred judgement passed by Allahabad High Court in Bhanu Pratap Singh & Anr Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow & Ors, 2013 (121) RD 339 and of Supreme Court in Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan through Legal Representative Vs. Ranbir Singh & Ors, 1995 Suppl (4) SCC 275 . 13. Per contra, Sri H.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of contesting respondent no.8 has submitted that earlier bid was of Rs.22 lakhs, however, a mandatory condition to deposit 1/4th of bid amount on the same day was not fulfilled, therefore, it was not carry forwarded. However, during three repeated failures of auction proceedings, material available in the cold storage got rotten, as well as some machinery was also stolen therefore, its value was decreased, therefore, on fourth attempt, highest bid was of lower amount i.e. of about 16 lakhs. 14. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the petitioners never came forward to offer any higher amount to said bid amount nor have come up with any proposed purchaser for higher amount within the stipulated period. Since the bank was satisfied with amount of bid, therefore, in these circumstances, petitioners cannot have objection to bid amount. He further submitted that petitioners have approached the concerned officer to deposit remaining 3/4th amount within 15 days of bid however, said officer has categorically communicated that since there is an interim order in another proceedings, therefore, said amount could not be deposited. 15. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has referred documents annexed in the counter affidavit i.e. a letter dated 19.3.1990 communicated by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Fatehgarh (Farrukhabad) for deposit of remaining 3/4th amount. In reply to it by a letter dated 21.3.1990, it was communicated that due to an interim order 3/4th amount could not be deposited. These documents are annexed as annexure nos. CA-4 and 5. For reference, same are reproduced hereinafter: Letter of the petitioners dated 19.3.1990 16. In reply to it by a letter dated 21.3.1990, it was communicated that due to an interim order 3/4th amount could not be deposited. These documents are annexed as annexure nos. CA-4 and 5. For reference, same are reproduced hereinafter: Letter of the petitioners dated 19.3.1990 16. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that 1/4th amount was deposited on same date by way of a cheque and was encashed on same day also. The Bank has filed documents to substantiate that 1/ 4 th amount was encashed on same day i.e. on 6.3.1990. 17. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has relied on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr Vs. Ikbal & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 83 . 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute that proceedings for recovery of amount by way of land arrears was initiated legally as well as first three attempts for auction were failed and even though earlier bid so offered was of Rs.22 lakhs. 20. Fourth attempt for auction sale was accepted even on a lesser amount of Rs.16.80 lakhs. An explanation is also on record that during first three auction proceedings, value of cold storage decreased since material preserved therein got destroyed as well as some machinery was also stolen, which has not been denied with with any material by petitioners. Even otherwise, it is an admitted case that petitioners never offered for repayment of amount in accordance with law nor brought any proposed purchaser, who could offer higher amount as well as there is no objection from the side of Bank in this regard, therefore, so far as objection to amount of bid is considered however being baseless, therefore, rejected. 21. According to records, 1/4th of bid amount was deposited by way of a cheque on the date of auction sale and it was encashed on same day. The Bank has filed a certificate to this effect, which could not be denied, therefore, submission of the petitioners about non-violation of provisions of Rule 285-D of Rules, 1952 is also baseless and acordingly rejected. 22. There is a mandatory requirement that remaining 3/4th amount of bid amount shall be deposited within 15 days of the bid. 23. The Bank has filed a certificate to this effect, which could not be denied, therefore, submission of the petitioners about non-violation of provisions of Rule 285-D of Rules, 1952 is also baseless and acordingly rejected. 22. There is a mandatory requirement that remaining 3/4th amount of bid amount shall be deposited within 15 days of the bid. 23. Admittedly, in the present case remaining amount was deposited after aforesaid period was over however, reference given by learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent no.8 on a letter communicated by the petitioners and reply to it by authority concerned that remaining amount of bid be not deposited within 15 days, since there was a stay order would be relevant. Said letters are annexed in the counter affidavit and corresponding reply in the rejoinder affidavit does not deny its existence. For reference para 9 of the rejoinder affidavit is mentioned hereinafter: “9. That para 10 of the counter affidavit is not admitted. The averments made in paras 9,10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition are reiterated as correct. It is no reply to the averments made in paras 9 to 12 at all. As stated in para 32 of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No.527 of 1987, Atma Ram Mishra Vs. Bank of India and others for relief of injunction against the Bank. The aforesaid suit was filed for injunction. The application for temporary injunction, Paper No.105-C, was filed by the petitioner but the aforesaid application was rejected by the Civil Court on 3-3-1990. The copy of the aforesaid order has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Due to the auction sale of the aforesaid Cold Storage and the impugned orders passed by the respondents, the aforesaid suit became infructuous. The reference of the aforesaid suit is wholly irrelevant.” 24. Above referred reply does not dispute about existence of above two documents. 25. The fact as to whether there was a stay order or not would have no legal value since, the concerned authority has stopped the contesting respondent from depositing remaining amount of bid within 15 days, which could not be considered adverse to the petitioners as well as there was no violation of Rules 1952. 26. 25. The fact as to whether there was a stay order or not would have no legal value since, the concerned authority has stopped the contesting respondent from depositing remaining amount of bid within 15 days, which could not be considered adverse to the petitioners as well as there was no violation of Rules 1952. 26. The respondent no.8 remained bonafide i.e. he has approached the concerned authority within 15 days of auction sale to deposit remaining amount of bid, therefore, submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in this regard is also rejected. 27. Judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are also not helpful to him in facts and circumstances of the present case since as discussed above there was no violation of any Rule of Rule 1952. 28. Outcome of aforesaid discussion is that no case is made out for causing interference with the impugned orders. 29. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.