U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 : Rules 285 D-Mandatory provision-Sale of land-By auction-Payment of one fourth bid amount-Rule contemplates payment by cash only-Payment by cheque-Not a valid tender-Sale declared a nullity-Land liable to be resold forthwith.

Code of Civil Procedure,· 1908: Order 21, Rules 84, 85 and 86-Sale of Property-Provision mandatory-Payment of 25 percent of bid amount- Immediately- Failure to do so would render sale a nullity-Property liable to be re-sold forthwith-Provision similar to Rules 285D and 285E of the U.P. Zamindari, Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952.

Words and Phrases : ''lmmediately"--'Forthwith''-Meaning of in the context of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952.

The appellant being the defaulter of Government dues was proceeded against for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and in pursuance or recovery proceedings the Collector attached his agricultural land. The said land was put to auction sale. The respondent was one of the bidders and his bid being highest it was knocked down in his Cavour. The Sale, Officer taking the bid made by respondent to be adequate and reasonable, accepted the same and directed the respondent to deposit 25 percent of the bid amount at once and the balance of the sale amount within 15 days. The respondent - auction purchaser deposited one-fourth or the bid amount by means of a cheque on the same day which was encashed and accounted for after 4 days and the balance or the bid amount was deposited in cash well within the time stipulated by Rule 285E of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. 

The appellant filed an objection before the Sale Officer for setting aside the auction sale on the ground that one-fourth of the bid amount was not deposited as required by Jaw. The Sale Officer rejected the aforesaid objection and the revision flied against the said order was dismissed by  the Commissioner. The said order of the Commissioner was set aside by the Board of Revenue In revision on the ground that the deposit of one-fourth of the bid money by means of cheque was not a valid deposit within the meaning of Rule 285-D of the rules and the auction sale was therefore void. The respondent flied a Writ petition before the High Court challenging the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue and It was allowed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellant preferred the present appeal.

On behalf or the appellants It was contended that Rule 285-D or the Rules was mandatory; that one-fourth or the bid amount had to be deposited Immediately by the auction purchaser; that failure to do so would render the sale a nullity; and that since the cheque for one-fourth of the bid amount was encashed four days after the auction It was not a valid deposit.