by him as the auction purchaser. In law, there was no basis for the said direction. The Division Bench has confirmed the said direction by holding that payment of the additional amount of 5 per cent adequately compensates the appellant. The 4th respondent bank has not challenged the impugned orders and has thus accepted the finding that the appellant must be compensated. 12. In short, the High Court set aside the auction sale not based on the provisions of the said Rules or on the ground that the auction was illegal. The High Court set aside the auction on equitable considerations, as the entire amount due and payable to the 4th respondent bank, including interest, was deposited by the 1st and 2nd respondents with the High Court within three months from filing the Writ Petition. 13. Therefore, there is no doubt that the appellant must be compensated as he was deprived of using the amount of Rs.81,20,000/- from 21st July 2019 till the date of actual refund due to no fault on his part.