Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsels for the parties. A notice was issued to opposite party No. 5 to show cause why the petition be not admitted. A counter affidavit has been filed as well as the rejoinder affidavit. Since the point involved is short, it is agreed upon amongst the learned counsels for different parties that the matter may be finally disposed of at this stage.
(2.) It appears that the land of the petitioner was auctioned in connection with certain dues standing against him. A sum of the Rs. 45,000/- was taken as loan from Zila Parishad and another sum of Rs. 8,000/- from the U.P. Land Development Bank. This amount was sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, in pursuance where of the auction was held, as mentioned earlier. The petitioner, if appears, file objections before the opposite party No. 2 under Rule 285-1 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules which have been disposed of by order dated 10.5.1988 passed by Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad.
(3.) The main contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had raised only two points in the objections one, that the sales proclamation which was issued, was defective as date of its issue was not mentioned and seal of the authority had not been affixed over it and also because full particulars had not been given nor required under the law for the mala proclamation. On this point, it may be noted that the learned Commissioner has made no discussion, nor any finding has been recorded except that after mentioning the objection of the petitioner, he had also made a mention of a case cited on behalf of the petitioner. He failed to record any finding as to whether the mala proclamation was valid or invalid in view of the law laid down in the case cited before him. The other point, which appears to have been pressed before opposite party No. 2, was that the petitioner was not served. In this connection also, it is to be found that the learned Commissioner has only enumerated the submission made by the counsel for the other side in para 5 of the order. But on this point also no finding has been accorded after perusal of record.;