The sale of Panchayat land by way of negotiations under Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, is not justified unless the Panchayat records reasons for adopting this mode of sale.

1. - This Special Appeal has been preferred by the villagers of village Bahaj, Tehsil and Police Station, Deeg, District Bharatpur, against the judgment dated 11th January 1980, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1250 of 1979, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

2. The respondent, Pyare Lal, is said to have encroached upon the village land and proceedings were initiated against him. On 18-9-1966, vide Annexure 1, he admitted that the land is the public land and he undertook that he would not occupy the land in future. The Gram Panchayat directed that encroachment made should be removed within a period of 15 days and a fine of Rs. 15/- was also imposed on him. Aggrieved by the said order an appeal was preferred before the Panchayat Samiti, Deeg, which was decided vide Annexure-2, dated 5-12-1966 and the appeal was dismissed.

3. Against the order of the Panchayat Samiti, Deeg, dated 5-12-1966, a revision petition was preferred before the Additional Collector, Bharatpur. The revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 18th March, 1967, by the Additional Collector, Bharatpur. Thus, the order of the Panchayat dated 18-9-1966 imposing a fine of Rs. 15/- and direction given to the respondent to remove encroachment within 15 days was maintained. Subsequently, Shri Pyare Lal moved an application praying that he may be allowed to construct a Bara on the said land for keeping animals there. The application was converted into an application for the purchase of the land. Vide Annexure-4 the land measuring 350Sqr. yards was directed to be sold to the applicant at rate of Rs. 2.50 per Sq. Yard. The Panchayat Samiti vide its order dated 25th July 1967 confirmed the sale.

4. The revision petition was preferred against the said order which was rejected by the learned Additional Collector, Bharatpur, vide order dated 17-5-1979. Learned Additional Collector held that the revision petition is time barred. He has also considered the other questions which were raised by the petitioners and found that from the inquiry report it seems that the petition has been filed only with the intention that the opposite party wants to grab the land. It was also contended that the six persons who are alleging that they are the aggrieved party, cannot file the revision petition and provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 are attracted. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Additional Collector, dated 17-5-1979, Annexure-8, the writ petition was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge on 11th January 1980. This special Appeal has been preferred against the said decision under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. At the admission stage show cause notice was issued and after hearing both the parties the writ petition was admitted by this Court.

5. Mr. Pathak, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the other authorities on the following grounds.

6. That the provisions of Rules 256 to 262 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, have not been complied with. He further submits that without compliance of Rules 257 to 259 notice inviting objections was issued vide Rule 260. He has referred to Annexure 4 and submitted that the application dated 1-10-1969 could not have been entertained for construction of Bada. Mr. Pathak submits that prior to issuance of such a notice the Panchayat should have provisionally decided to sell the Abadi land vide Rule 259. He further submits that the publication of the notice inviting objections was only done in the record and there was no actual publication and no objections were filed and, there after, the auction of the land should have been done. On the contrary, the Panchayat collusively decided to transfer the disputed land under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 266 of the rules. He further submits that the Rule 266 does not apply in t