JUDGMENT : (Manish Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the Respondent No.1 (Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow) under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act and order dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Respondent No.2 (Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow) under Section 285-I of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules, 1952). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased a land Gata No.978 area 0.4810 hectare and Gata No.1060 area 0.6160 hectre situated at Village Tikra Kalan, Pargana -Gondwa, Tehsil -Sandila, District -Hardoi through public auction which was held on 24.10.1991. The petitioner as per Rule 285D of Rules, 1952 had deposited 25% of the purchase amount on the very same day i.e. 24.10.1991. The remaining amount of sale consideration was paid by the petitioner on 08.11.1991 to the Collection Amin on or before 15th day from the date of sale as per Rule 285E of the Rules, 1952. 4. It is further submitted that against the said sale an objection under Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952 was preferred by the Respondent No.4 that the petitioner had not deposited the remaining amount within 15 days from the date of sale. The proceedings were going on and finally the present impugned orders have been passed against the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order under Section 285-I dated 6.6.2005 by Respondent No.2, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing and completely ignored this fact that the petitioner had deposited the amount on 08.11.1991 with the Collection Amin. 5. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order under Section 285-I dated 6.6.2005 by Respondent No.2, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing and completely ignored this fact that the petitioner had deposited the amount on 08.11.1991 with the Collection Amin. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 20.10.2008 i.e. questionnaire dated 03.10.2008 and also relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner and other vs. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. passed in Special Appeal No.653 of 2021 wherein, this Court has held that the power conferred upon the Commissioner to determine and adjudicate upon the proper conduct of the auction sale, the Commissioner is required to record findings after giving notice to the parties and giving them opportunity for producing oral and documentary evidence, which had not been provided to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the remaining sale amount was not deposited by the purchaser / petitioner within 15 days of the sale as required under Rule 285-E of the Rules, 1952 and the consequences of the same is that the sale will be treated as null and void and in support of his submission learned State counsel has relied upon the judgements of this Court dated 29.09.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.4758 (M/S) of 2008 (Ajay Singh vs. Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh and others and the judgement in the case of Narayan Kumar Agarwal and Another. vs. Board of Revenue and 5 others reported in 2003(1) ALJ, page 662. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case and the judgements cited by both the sides the questions which are to be decided by this Court firstly, whether the remaining amount of sale consideration was deposited by the petitioner within 15 days from the date of sale or not as per Rule 285 E of Rules, 1952 and secondly, whether the order passed by the respondent was without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner makes the impugned order bad in the eyes of law. 8. As per facts of this case as discussed hereinabove, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had paid the remaining sale consideration on 08.11.1991 to the Collection Amin. 8. As per facts of this case as discussed hereinabove, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had paid the remaining sale consideration on 08.11.1991 to the Collection Amin. On being asked to show or produce any receipt for deposition of the amount, learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that no receipt is available with the petitioner but he has relied upon reply to the questionnaire provided by the Collection Amin which has been enclosed as SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 20.10.2008, wherein it has been mentioned that the amount was paid by the petitioner to the Collection Amin on 08.11.1991. The amount said to be paid to the Collection Amin by the petitioner is not deposit of the full amount of sale consideration in accordance with Rule 285 E of the Rules, 1952. For convenience Rule 285 E is quoted hereinbelow: "Rule 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 expenses of sale have been defrayed therefrom, 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 Rule 285-E clearly shows without there being any ambiguity that the full amount of purchase is to be deposited by the purchaser on or before the 15th day from the date of sale at the district treasury or any sub-treasury. There is no other mode of payment provided for much less payment made to the Collection Amin. 10. As per the questionnaire relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner the amount was paid on 08.11.1991 to the Collection Amin and the 15 days period as required under Rules 285-E had come to an end on 09.11.1991 and the said amount was deposited on 15.11.1991, after the expiry of 15 days period and as per the law settled that the requirement of these provisions are mandatory in nature as the consequences of non-deposition of the amount within the prescribed time are also provided for specifically and in detail. The petitioner had not deposited the amount within period as provided under the statute i.e. Rule 285E for the reason the money was not deposited in the treasury or sub-treasury. It is alleged to be paid to the Collection Amin, who has no authority under the statute to whom the purchaser could deposit the amount. 11. The amount which is alleged to be paid to the Collection Amin, who is said to have deposited the same on 15.11.1991, after 15 days as per reply to the questionnaire relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner filed as SA-1 to the Supplementary affidavit filed on 20.10.2008 amounts to non-deposition of money and clear violation of Rule 285-E of Rules, 1952 and as per law settled by this Court in the case of Narayan Kumar Agarwal & Another (Supra), the relevant paras 9, 10 and 11 are quoted hereinbelow : "9. Since, the 3/4th amount has been deposited after period of 15 days from the date of auction, as such, in view of provisions contained under Rule 285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the auction / sale shall deemed to be null and void and property shall be re-sold. Rule 285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules is as follows: "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 therefrom, shall be forfeited to 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." 10. Considering the mandatory provision contained under Rule 285-E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules as well as ratio of law laid down in Manilal Mohanlal Shah (supra), Kunwar Mohan Swarup (supra), Moolchand (supra), Babu Ram (supra) Mahmood Ahmad Khan (supra) and State of U.P. (supra) as cited by counsel for the petitioners impugned auction sale cannot be maintained in the eye of law. 11. 11. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are fully applicable in the present matter as deposit of remaining 3/4th amount by respondent no.5 is beyond 15 days and fact of deposit is admitted to both parties, as such, there is no option except to hold that the auction held is nullity and property should be re-sold." 12. Learned Standing Counsel has also placed relied upon the case of Ajay Singh (Supra), the relevant para is quoted hereinbelow: "There is also finding of the revisional court that though the remaining money of auction i.e. 3/4th amount was handed over to the Collector but the same was deposited with the Tehsil on 1.2.1994 and accordingly, he has treated the said deposit as no deposit under Rule 285-D. Therefore, I am of the view that it is violation of mandatory provision as under Rule 285-E it is provided that the full amount of purchase money was required to be deposited on or before the fifteenth day from the date of the sale at the district treasury or any sub-treasury. The petitioner's case is supported with the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rao Mahmood Ahmad Khan's case. 25 per cent of the bid amount was paid by cheque but the same was not treated as paid under the provisions of Section 285-E. Here-in-also the remaining amount was not deposited in the treasury on or before the 15th day from the date of sale. There is also a violation of Rule 285E. . . Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law declared by this Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that there is no error in the order impugned and thus, the same does not warrant interference of this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs." 13. As far as the opportunity of hearing before the respondents is concerned, remanding the matter by quashing the impugned orders on the ground of opportunity of hearing would be a futile exercise in the facts & circumstances of this case, since on his own admission the petitioner had not deposited the full sale consideration in treasury or sub-treasury within 15 days of the sale according to Rule 285-E which is a mandatory provision. 14. 14. In view of above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.