Collector has no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Municipality under section 283 of the Act in case of sale of Nazul lands placed at the disposal of the Board. Against an order made under section 266 of the Act in case of compounding a case or compromising an offence, only a revision is maintainable under section 300 of the Act to the State Government and atleast not to the Collector.

1. :- By way of this writ petition, orders dated 23.3.85 (Ann.1) and 24.5.99 (Ann.3) have been challenged. The facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly stated are, that in Ward No.24 of Sawaimadhopur, in between petitioner's house and a Mazjid there was a Padat land measuring 59 ft. x62.5 ft., for which an application on behalf of Mazjid was filed by one Akthar Hussain for regularisation of possession of land measuring 43.6 x 62.5 ft.. Consequently the Commissioner, Municipal Board Sawaimadhopur vide order dated 23.3.85 (Ann.1) regularised the land at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. metre dividing the same into two parts i.e. 45.6x9=34.6 ft. x45, and permission for construction was accorded. Against which the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur who vide Judgment dated 6.2.96 (Ann.2) set aside the order dated 23.3.85 (Ann.1) with regard to land measuring 45.6x9 ft situated on southern side of the Mazjid. Against the said Judgment dated 6.2.96 (Ann.2) respondents No.4 and 5 filed revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kota (respondent No.1) who vide Judgment dated 24.5.1999 (Ann.3) while allowing the revision set aside the order dated 6.2.96 (Ann.2) of the Collector and restored the Municipality's order dated 23.3.95 (Ann.1) holding that District Collector had no jurisdiction under section 80(2) of the Municipalities Act. Hence this writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments referred to above.

3. Shri M.L. Goyal learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Divisional Commissioner had committed an error of law in passing the impugned order against the provisions of law and facts of the case. According to him respondents No.1, 2 & 3 had not exercised the powers vested upon them on the application of the petition moved on 30th October, 1984 for regularising his possession over the land measuring 21x81 ft and 35.6 ftx14.6 ft. to which none had objected whereas the Municipal Board rejected his application and contrarily accepted the application of respondent Nos. 4 & 5, without taking into consideration the fact that respondents No.4 & 5 were permitted of the regularisation of the land, in fact over which the petitioner had possession. Thus the Municipal Board completely oblivious of the actual possession of the petitioner. In the alternative Shri Goya] contended that even if the regularisation of the land sought for by the petitioner was granted in his favour, no prejudice would have been caused to the respondents no.4 & 5 because they had individual claim for regularisation of the disputed land.

4. Before dealing with the contention as advanced by the learned counsel, I deem it proper to refer to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act, which stipulates as under:

"(2)(a) The State Government or any Officer authorised by it in this behalf may, for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any proposal to lease, sale or transfer or any Government land made by or on behalf of a board or by any member Chairman, Vice Chairman or Officer of a board call for the relevant record, and may while doing so direct that pending the examination of the matter, the proposal to lease, sell, or transfer of the Government land shall remain in abeyance and no action in furtherance thereof shall be taken till the decision of the State Government or of the aforesaid officer under Sub-Sec (2)(b).

(b) If after examination of the record and after giving to the person interested in such proposal, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid, is satisfied that the proposal to lease, sell or transfer the Government land is not in accordance with or in contravention of the provisions of this Act, it may by order published in the Official Gazette, modify, cancel or rescind wholly or in part the proposal