D. S. Sinha. J. - (1.) Heard Sri P. S. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Upendra Singh, holding brief of Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 1 to 4. No body appears for the respondents No. S, 6 and 7. 2 In connection with realisation of certain dues of the Uttar Pradesh State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Bilhaur Branch at Tahsil Bilhapur in district Kanpur, the respondent No. 2, from one Sri Kishan, the respondent No 5 the agricultural plots specified m paragraph 3 of the writ petition were auctioned on 10th June, 1976. At the said auction, the petition was the highest bidder. The bid of the petitioner, it appears, was provisionally accepted. But before the sale in favour of the peti tioner could be confirmed, the respondent No. 5 moved an applicant on 18th June, 1976 praying for cancellation of the proposed sale in favour of the petitioner. Against this application the petitioner filed objection on 11th August 1976. After considering the application of the respondent No. 5 and the objection of the petitioner, the Sabhapati (Chairman), Managing Committee/board of Directors, U. P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Lucknow, the respondent No. 3, who appears to be the appropriate authority under the U. P. Co-operative Land Development Banks Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the rules) which govern and regulate the procedure for auction, sale, confirmation and setting aside of the sale conducted for the purpose of realisation of the dues of the U. P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank, set aside the auction and sale in favour of the petitioner. The factum of setting aside of the auction and sale in favour of the petitioner was communi cated to him by the respondent No. 2 by means of the communication dated 29th September, 1976, a copy whereof is Annexure '7' to the petition. The petitioner prays that the said communication dated 29th September, 1976 be quashed. 3. It may be noticed that the original order of the respondent No. 3 setting aside the auction and sale in favour of the petitioner has not been pro duced before this court by the petitioner and the court is handicapped in scrutinising the legality thereof. For so long as the order of the respondent No. 3 setting aside the auction and sale in favour of the petitioner is not set aside, the quashing of the communication dated 29th September, 1976, as prayed by the petitioner, will be of no consequence, and the order of the respondent No. 3 cancelling the auction and sale in favour of the petitioner, not being before the court, cannot be quashed. 4. There is another aspect of the case which cannot be lost sight of. The plots in dispute have been transferred by the respondent No. 5 in favour of Suresh Prasad and Kailash Nath Verma, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by means of a registered sale-deed dated 21st May, 1977. Indisputably, on 21st May, 1977, the date on which the property was transferred in favour of the respondents No. 6 and 7, the respondent No. 5 was fully competent to transfer the plots by means of the sale-deed dated, 21st May, 1977 as his title was not under eclipse. This being so the respondents No. 6 and 7 have become lawful owners of the plots in dispute unless the sale-deed dated 21st May, 1977 exe cuted in their favour by the respondent No. S is set aside, their right to hold the disputed property cannot be disturbed. It cannot be gainsaid that the sale-deed in favour of the respondents No. 6 and 7 cannot be annulled by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the petitioner, who had not acquired any legal right in the absence of the requisite confirmation of auction and sale in his favour as contemplated by Rule 40 of the Rules. Thus, the exercise of jurisdiction by this court for quashing the communication dated 29th September, 1976 (Annexure 't to the petition), as prayed by the petitioner, would be an exercise in futility. It is well settled that the High Court shall not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in futility. The court, therefore, declines to exercise its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution invoked by the petitioner. 5. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;