D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner sought for the following reliefs in this writ petition:- "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1.3 & 4 to decide the application and objection dated 29-1-1997 filed by the petitioner within one week and open the locks of the cold storage 1 (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the auction dated 31-1-1997. 2. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 to resettle the arrears of loan against the petitioner which was advanced by respondent No. 2 on the basis of judgment dated 20-6-1994 in Civil Appeal No. 4214 of 198, 544 of 1986 Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda and another reported in 1995 A.C.J. Page 746. 3. to issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 4. award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 5. a further writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24-4-97 passed by respondent No. 1. 6. a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to hand over the Cold Storage to the Directors of the petitioner."
(2.) The above reliefs are based on the allegations, as contended on behalf of the petitioner, that the disputed cold storage was illegally sold to the respondent No. 6 allegedly in auction on 31-3-1997 pursuant to a recovery proceedings initiated under Section 284 read with Rule 81 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the rules) respectively. The objection under Rule 285-1 of the said Rules filed by the petitioner in connection therewith has not yet been decided. By an order dated 24-4-1997, without notice to the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 has been appointed Receiver of the said cold storage by the Collector.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in conducting the alleged auction the respondent had violated the provisions of of the Act and Rules 282 to 285 of the rules. He also contended that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver. He contended further that while appointing Receiver, the District Magistrate has violated the procedure as laid down in Section 286 of the Act.;