IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1144 OF 2002 (MS) Dhirendra Adhikari …..Petitioner. Versus The Collector, Nainital and others. ………..Respondents. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 to 3. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent no. 4. 1st December, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia,J. Heard Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 to 3 and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent no. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (since deceased) challenging the auction dated 22.8.1992, whereby as a consequence of default in payment of loan, the land of the petitioner, which he had mortgaged to the Bank was auctioned under the law enforceable at the relevant time. The whole contention of the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner was auctioned and purchased by respondent no. 4 at the rate of Rs. 51,250/- (Fifty One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) per acre, which was much lower than that of auction dated 5.3.1992, which was for a sum of Rs. 65,000/- per acre. The reasons assigned for cancelling the auction dated 5.3.1992 are not plausible, and since it had a much higher price. However, the land was ultimately auctioned on 22.8.1992 at the rate of Rs. 51,250/- per acre. The petitioner contends that in this regard he had made a representation before the 2 Additional District Magistrate, who had constituted an inquiry, in which it was found that the highest bid of the land was made in the auction dated 5.3.1992, which was the correct price, i.e. Rs. 65,000/- per acre. Be that as it may, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 1993 and by means of an interim order of this Court, he is in occupation of the property. Moreover, no serious anomaly in the procedure, which had been adopted in the auction has been alleged. Respondent no. 4 is the auction purchaser, who has made the highest bid in the auction on 22.8.1992 and contends that the petitioner in any case has an alternative remedy under Section 285-H of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (from hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952) and even the person, who had made the highest bid in the auction dated 5th March, 1992 has an alternative remedy under Section 285-I of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules, 1952. Both these remedies have not been availed. Indeed, there is no procedural anomaly in the auction dated 22.8.1992 in fact no serious anomaly is alleged. In the auction dated 28.2.1992 prior to auction dated 5th March, 1992, the highest bid was for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per acre and the price on which the land has been finally sold in the auction dated 22.8.1992 which is Rs. 51,250/- per acre is higher than that of auction dated 28.2.1992. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 states that he has no claim regarding mesne profit on the said property for the period it was in the possession of the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 further contends that he has already deposited the entire amount and therefore, the 3 proceedings may be expedited. Request seems to be genuine. For the reasons stated above, this Court, finds no anomaly in the auction dated 22.8.1992. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order dated 15.3.1993 is also vacated. Respondent Authorities are directed to expedite the necessary and consequential action pertaining to the auction dated 22.8.1992. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia,J.) 01.12.2009 Rathour