- (1.)In proceedings for recovery of income-tax due from Messrs. Mohanlal Company, the Tax Recovery Officer, Kanpur, attached house No. 1/196, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur. Thereafter, a proclamation for sale of the property was issued. The auction was held on October 16, 1963, and was knocked down to the petitioner at Rs. 6,000. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,500 on the spot in accordance with rule 57(1) of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961. On October 28, 1963, the petitioner received a notice from Shri H. P. Mudgal, acting on behalf of Rup Narain Dikshit and Baikunth Vaishni Dikshit, informing him that the property which had been purchased by him was subject to a mortgage on the foot of which a suit had been instituted, and the suit had been decreed for Rs. 10,434,79. On October 30, 1963, the petitioner field an application under rule 61 of Schedule II pointing out that the fact that property was subject to an encumbrance had not been disclosed in the sale proclamation and that, if he had know of the encumbrance, he would not have purchased the house, and, therefore, the sale should be set aside on the ground of a material irregularity in and conducting the sale. The petitioner says that on orders were passed upon that application that application, and then on February 21, 1964, he made another application praying that the sale be cancelled and in the alternative for permission to deposit the balance of the purchase money. This application was rejected on March 24, 1964, by the Tax Recovery Office In that order the Tax Recovery Office observed that the security deposit was forfeited because of the omission of the petitioner to pay the balance of the purchase money in time and a fresh auction was directed. The petitioner says that the order was passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard in the matter. He was informed of the order subsequently on March 25, 1964. On April 25, 1964, the petitioner field an application praying for the review of the order forfeiting the security and prayed that either the money deposited by him be refunded to him or, in the alternative, he be allowed to deposit the balance of the purchase money so that the sale was confirmed in his favour. The application had already been forfeited, and reiterating that the property should be reauctioned. Then the petitioner made a second application for review on June 6, 1964. It is this application with which this petition is concerned. It is described as a review application against the order dated March 31, 1964, forfeiting Rs. 1,500 deposited by the applicant towards the purchase price of house No. 1/196, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur and after setting out the grounds for review, which pointed out that the sale proclamation did not disclose the encumbrance upon the property and that the omission amounted to a material irregularity in conducting and publishing the sale and, therefore, the sale was liable to be set aside, and that the applications of the petitioner had been dismissed ex parte, the petitioner prayed that :
The order dated March 31, 1964, forfeiting Rs. 1,500 of the applicant be set aside and the order for refund of the said amount to the applicant be passed; in the alternative, the applicant be allowed to deposit Rs. 4,500, balance sale consideration and, in the meantime, resale may kindly be stayed.

(2.)During the pendency of this application, the petitioner moved another application, apparently on September 14, 1965, pointing out that the date mentioned in the review application as the date of the impugned order was an error and that instead of March 31, 1964, the date May 8, 1964, should be read. Both the applications were rejected by a common order dated September 21, 1965, by the Tax Recovery Officer. The petitioner has filed the instant petition praying for certiorari against the order dated March 24, 1964, May 8, 1964, and September 21, 1965.
(3.)When the petition came on for hearing before me, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he confined his petition to the relief for certiorari against the order dated September 21, 1965.