ORDER : 1. These petitions arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 24-2-2020 in Misc. Single No.1186/1994, by which the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the father of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 respectively - herein (original petitioners) and thereby setting aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the order dated 9-11-2021 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.79089/2020 (Review Application) filed by the petitioner whereby the Review Application was dismissed. 2. We need not delve much into the facts of this litigation as we propose to dispose of these petitions by passing a short order. 3. We take notice of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2-12-2022 which reads thus:- 'Delay condoned. Issue notice confined to the question as to the appropriate compensation on damages which can be paid to the petitioner on the facts of the case, returnable in four weeks.' 4. Thus, it is evident that notice was issued confined only to the question whether the petitioner - herein should be compensated appropriately by way of damages in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. It appears from the materials on record that the father of the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 respectively herein had obtained loan from a Bank. The father defaulted in repayment of the loan. 6. In such circumstances, the land in question was put to auction by the Collector sometime in 1992. 7. The petitioner - herein participated in the auction and was declared the highest bidder. His bid of Rs.70,000/- for the subject - land was accepted and finalized. 8. However, before any Sale Certificate could be issued and the auction proceedings could attain finality, the private respondents - herein challenged the legality and validity of the auction first before the Commissioner. 9. The Commissioner declined to grant any relief. 10. The order of the Commissioner was challenged before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also declined to interfere. 11. In such circumstances, referred to above, the private respondents went before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondents - herein holding as under:- '(12) The auction sale dated 14.08.1992 having not followed the prescribed procedure is set aside. The Board of Revenue also declined to interfere. 11. In such circumstances, referred to above, the private respondents went before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondents - herein holding as under:- '(12) The auction sale dated 14.08.1992 having not followed the prescribed procedure is set aside. The order dated 04.03.1993 passed by the Commissioner in Appeal and the order dated 08.04.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue in the Revision both are set aside. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to clear that loan amount alongwith interest and recovery charges upto date of auction sale i.e. 14.08.1992, it is admitted by the State-respondents that Rs.53,000/- and odd was due, the petitioner shall deposit the said amount in the office of the opposite party no.3 and the opposite party no.3 shall direct the return of Rs.70,000/- deposited by the respondent no.4 now represented through his legal heirs and representatives to the said legal heirs and representatives alongwith admissible interest as per Rule 285 to the legal heirs and representatives of the respondent no.4 within a period two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him. (13) Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 says that Rs.70,000/- was deposited by them in the Treasury in 1992 and more than 28 years have passed if such amount had been deposited any Bank, the respondents would have earned interest thereon. (14) Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has pointed out from the affidavit filed by the State-respondents that the amount was tried to be returned to the respondent no.4 and his legal heirs and representatives but they refused to take the same and therefore, it was deposited in the Treasury. If that be so, no direction can be issued to the State-respondents to return the amount alongwith interest to the respondent no.4 and his legal heirs and representatives. It is a settled position in law that unless auction sale is confirmed no legal rent accrues on the date of auction. The petitioner had submitted his objections under Rule 285 on the same day and there was a stay on the confirmation of the auction sale both at the Appellate Stage and at the Revisional stage and this stay continued by means of an interim order granted by this Court on 06.05.1994. The petitioner had submitted his objections under Rule 285 on the same day and there was a stay on the confirmation of the auction sale both at the Appellate Stage and at the Revisional stage and this stay continued by means of an interim order granted by this Court on 06.05.1994. (15) Learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out the Rule 285 and of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules of 1952 which says that in case, the sale of any holding or other immovable property is set aside the auction purchaser shall be entitled to receive back his purchase money plus an amount not exceeding 5% of the purchase money, as the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may determine. (16) It has been submitted by the Standing Counsel that no party shall be prejudiced by an order of the Court, therefore, the State-respondents cannot now be saddled with the responsibility of returning Rs.70,000/- deposited by the respondent no.4 alongwith interest thereon to the respondent no.4, his legal heirs and representatives (17) The legal heirs of the Respondent no.4 shall returned the purchase money alongwith amount admissible under Rule 285 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rule 1952 within a period of two months by the Collector. (18) Writ petition stands allowed.' 12. Thus, the High Court took the view that the auction proceedings were not conducted fairly and in a transparent manner. Accordingly, the auction was declared to be bad. 13. Today, we are not getting into the controversy whether the High Court is right on merits or not. 14. We take notice of Para 17 of the impugned order passed by the High Court, referred to above. 15. The High Court directed the State to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner - herein way back in 1992 along with the requisite amount as admissible in Rule 285 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. 16. The relevant Rule which the High Court is talking about referred to in Para 17 is actually Rule 285L. 17. 16. The relevant Rule which the High Court is talking about referred to in Para 17 is actually Rule 285L. 17. Rule 285L of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 reads thus:- 'Whenever the sale of any holding or other immovable property is set aside under Rule 285-II or Rule 285-1 the purchaser shall be entitled to receive back his purchase money plus an amount not exceeding five per cent of the purchase money as the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may determine.' 18. If we have to apply Rule 285L then the petitioner is entitled only to a maximum of 5% of the principal amount of Rs.70,000/-. 19. We are of the view that it will be too much to tell the petitioner - herein that he should be rest contented with refund of Rs.70,000/- along with approximately Rs.3500/- in accordance with Rule 285L of the Rules. 20. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and without citing it as a precedent, we direct the State to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner - herein @ 9% simple interest p.a. from the date of deposit of the said amount. 21. The Authorities shall calculate the amount accordingly and pay to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 22. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of. 23. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.