Judgement Key Points

Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—Petitioner, Bhagwan Lal, by the instant writ petition has impugned the order dated 24th of December 1996 passed by the District Collector, Rajsamand, whereby sale of a piece of land measuring 100 x 80 at village Tikkad by Gram Panchayat Khakharmala to him on 30.01.1990 was annulled. The learned District Collector passed the said order on a revision petition of the fourth respondent under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1953 read with Section 124(1) of the Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (for short, ‘Act of 1994’) taking note of violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 262 to 265 contained under the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules 1961 (for short, ‘Rules of 1961’).

2. The bare necessary facts, for the purpose of this writ petition are that Gram Panchayat, Khakharmala auctioned/allotted certain residential plots pursuant to its resolution dated 23rd of December 1989 and a plot measuring 100 x 80 was purchased by the petitioner at the cost of Rs.500. In the auction proceedings undertaken by the Gram Panchayat, in all 15 persons were sold plots of different denominations. Being aggrieved from the auction of plots, more precisely auction of plot in favour of petitioner, the fourth respondent preferred a revision petition under Section 27A of the Act of 1953 read with Rule 272 of the Rules of 1961 before the District Collector, Rajsamand. In the revision petition, it was inter-alia averred by the fourth respondent that the entire auction proceedings were undertaken by the Gram Panchayat in utter disregard of Rule 262 to 265 of the Rules of 1961 and no prior 30 days auction notification was issued for the same. It is also alleged in the revision petition that the sale pursuant to auction was not approved by the competent officer. With all these averments, the fourth respondent craved for cancellation of the auction of plot in favour of petitioner.

3. The revision petition was contested by the petitioner. While referring to the other incumbents, to whom plots were sold in auction, the petitioner has averred that those plots were allotted to some of the individuals belonging to the privileged class of the society free of cost and the plot was sold to the petitioner after undertaking all requisite formalities envisaged under the Rules of 1961. As regards the inadequate consideration of the land, petitioner has submitted in reply that land was situated at a far off distance from Abadi area and therefore at the relevant point of time its value was worth Rs.500 only. Questioning the locus of the fourth respondent, petitioner has also averred that the revision petition is outcome of political vengeance and therefore it is liable to be rejected.

4. The learned District Collector, after hearing the rival parties and scanning relevant file of Gram Panchayat, found that although there is an order for issuance of auction notification but date of notification is not traceable from the record. The District Collector has recorded a categorical finding that there is no date of the auction notification and requisite compliance of Rule 133(2) and Rule 262 of the Rules of 1961 is also not discernible from the perusal of the record. It is also noticed by the learned District Collector that requisite proof/ material is not available on the file to show that proceedings of the auction was sent for approval to the competent authority. Non-availability of resolution of Gram Panchayat for auction with requisite Coram was also considered by it as a serious flaw. In that background, the learned District Collector found that the entire auction proceedings is farce and contrary to rules. Taking note of the fact that auction was not approved by the competent authority under Rule 255 of the Rules of 1961, within the prescribed period, it eventually concluded that auction proceedings were dehors the law. With all these findings the learned District Collector allowed the revision petition and set aside the auction made in favour of pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document