Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.9.2013 of the Additional District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby while allowing the revision petition preferred by the second respondent herein, under Section 97 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act"), a patta of a plot issued by the Gram Panchayat, Umaji Ka Kheda, in favour of the petitioner, stands cancelled.

2. The revisional authority has arrived at the finding that the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat does not disclose as to why instead of putting the disputed plot to auction, the same was sold in favour of the petitioner herein by private negotiation under Rule 156 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules").

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the plot in question was sold by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner after following the due process of law for the price determined on the basis of existing DLC rate and thus, the revisional authority has seriously erred in setting aside the patta, without there being any justifiable reason. Learned Counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the revision petitioner had preferred an application for withdrawal of the revision petition but without deciding the said application, the revision petition was allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that as per the provisions of the Rules, ordinarily, the abadi land can only be sold through public auction but, in the instant case, without there being anything on record suggesting that the conditions provided for under Rule 156 of the Rules are satisfied, the Gram Panchayat, proceeded to sale the plot in question to the petitioner by private negotiation. Learned AGC submitted that besides the petitioner, his family members have also been granted pattas of the plots in the same manner without following the procedure laid down. Learned Counsel would submit that the State Government is empowered to exercise the power of revision and review under Section 97 of the Act and therefore, nothing turns on the question that the revisional authority did not permit the revision petitioner to withdraw the revision petition and decided the same on merits.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. Indisputably, in the instant case, the disputed plot has been sold by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner by private negotiation under Rule 156 of the Rules, which reads as under:

"Rule 156. Transfer of Abadi land by private negotiation.-(1) The Panchayat may transfer any Abadi Iand by way of sale by private negotiation in the following cases:-

(a) Where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price;

(b) Where there is a trespass or for any other reason to be recorded in writing, Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land;

(c) Where it is strip of land as per sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 144 and there is only one applicant.

(2) In no case such Abadi land, shall be transferred on a rate below index price fixed by Sub-Registrar and conveyed by Vikas Adhikari as prevailing market price for the village.

(3) Such market price in a bazaar or commercial area shall not be less than, double the price fixed for residential areas."

7. A bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 156 of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that for invoking the power conferred on Panchayat for transfer of Abadi land by private negotiation, there are two conditions precedent; firstly, the person asking for the sale of land by private negotiation must have plausible claim of title to the land and secondly, the Panchayat must come to a definite conclusion that the land claimed to be sold by private negotiation may not fetch reasonable price if the same is put to auction. It goes without saying that a plausible claim of