recovery authorities through recovery proceedings. Therefore, I feel if sale is not set aside, the same would not protect even the interest of the creditor Bank, which is a public institution. The sale at such a low price should be interfered with because if the impugned order is upheld, then petitioner can claim refund of Rs. 3 lakhs paid to the company towards settlement of liability and the Bank will have to be contented with Rs. 1 lakh obtained through revenue recovery proceedings. Market value of the property is above Rs. 1 lakh is obvious because petitioner has paid Rs. 3 lakhs to the Bank to maintain his claim over the property. In the circumstance, WP(C) is allowed vacating Ext.P14 order of the District Collector, which was issued without hearing the petitioner. However, there will be direction to 3rd respondent to refund the amount deposited by the 5th respondent forthwith. It is seen that the Tahsildar has not deposited the money with the Bank and therefore, Government has availed the amount recovered through recovery proceedings. Treasury Deposits, accepted by the Government, were at high rate of interest i.e. up to 13% per annum during that period and therefore Government is liable to pay interest to the 5th respondent. Therefore, Tahsildar is directed to
