however, there is no way that the Tehsildar could have decided at the stage of issuance of the advertisement itself that there would be one person and mention the aforesaid amount. In the case of an auction it should have been clearly mentioned in the advertisement that this condition would apply where only one person is found eligible for the lease but where an auction is held and there are several participants, in that case, the highest bid would be the annual rent payable or would be the rent payable for ten years as the case may be. None of this is mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner participated in the auction with the highest bid amount of Rs. 2,53,000/-. He deposited the aforesaid amount in two installments; first on 13.07.2016 and the second on 09.07.2018. He was under bonafide belief, as claimed, that the bid money was for the entire lease period of 10 years. The Tehsildar, however, issued a recovery certificate for recovery of the due amount treating the aforesaid bid money as payable annually. However, we do not find any such stipulation in the advertisement. In fact sub-Rule (7) of Rule 57 of the Rules, 2016 when it speaks of the minimum and maximum amount payable per acre as lease rent in the eventuality where only one person is found eligible though the specific amount has to be fixed by the State but Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Tehsildar could not place before us any such decision where the State Government may have fixed the amount. 7. At this stage, counsel for the State says that there is a stipulation in the lease agreement. He has placed before the Court a proforma lease agreement, however, no such lease agreement was entered into by the Tehsildar or the Sub Divisional Magistrate as the case may be with the petitioner, nor has the bid been cancelled at any point of time. It is submitted that a notice was issued to the petitioner for getting the lease executed and for
