A.P.SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD Shri N.C. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petition­ers and Shri R.K. Saini, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and the learned Standing Counsel ap­pearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri Manoj Mishra has been served with a notice on behalf of the respondent No. 5 but no counter-affidavit has been filed nor any body is present on behalf of the said respondent.
(2.) WITH the consent of the parties the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage. The dispute centers around the auction of a plot of land of Khata No. 190 bearing plot No. 474/2 area 1.024 hect­ares. The said auction proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against late Ham Chand, the father of the petitioner Nos. 1,2 and 3 and the husband of the petitioner No. 4. During the pendency of the recov­ery proceedings Ham Chand died and the recovery proceeded by way of auction of the said plot of land. According to the records of the State as brought through a counter-affidavit of the contesting respon­dent No. 6, the amount of Rs. 22,980 was sought to be recovered together with in­terest and other charges thereon. The to­tal amount according to the report of the Tehsildar, a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the said counter-affidavit, at the time of the auction had swelled to Rs. 48,551. For the satisfaction of the said amount the auction was conducted, in which it is alleged that the respondent No. 6 also participated and ultimately the bid was knocked down in his favour for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 for the entire area of the land of the aforesaid plot. The auction sale was confirmed and possession was handed over to the contesting respondent No. 6.
(3.) AFTER a lapse of more than a year, the petitioners moved an objection under Section 285-I of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act questioning the auction alongwith an ap­plication under Section 5 of the Limita­tion Act praying for condoning the delay. The delay was condoned by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 4th De­cember, 2003 and notices were issued inviting objections on behalf of the con­testing respondents as well. The learned Commissioner thereafter disposed of the matter on merits rejecting the objections on the ground that there was no material irregularity in carrying out the auction pro­ceedings and, therefore, the same did not require any interference.;