Honble SHETHNA, J.–Issue notice to the respondents.

(2). Learned counsel Mr.N.K.Goyal appears for Rameshwar Dass private contesting respondent no.4 on Caveat. Mr. Dinesh Maheshawri, learned counsel is directed to accept the notice for the respondents no.1,2,3, and 6. The respondent no 5. is a formal party in the matter. The respondent no.7, Megh Raj, who is a Reader to Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Chhatargarh, is joined as party respondent because of certain personal allegations levelled against him, however, a proper care can be taken for that by directing the Colonization Commissioner to make enquiry into the matter against the respondent no.7. However, his presence is not must for the adjudication of this petition.

(3). Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(4). The petitioner Smt. Durga Devi submitted an application under Rule 13-A for sale of 25 bighas of land in question by special allotment Rameshwar Dass-present respondent no.4 for whom Mr. N.K. Goyal is appearing on caveat and one Chandra Prakash were two other applicants alongwith the present petitioner. As per the Order-sheet dated 30.5.98 the authority found the petitioner and the respondents no.4 and 5 eligible to participate in the auction. However, column for date was kept vacant (Annex.1). The said Order-Sheet was drawn in File No.6384/96 of Rameshwar Dass- respondent no.4. The said file was taken on Board on 11.9.98 which was adjourned to 19.9.98. On that date also, it was adjourned on account of want of quorum. However, the Order-sheet dated 26.9.98 shows that some registered notices were issued in respect of the auction and in response to that the petitioner did not remain present where as the respondents no.4 and 5 were present. The auction was held between the respondents no. 4 and 5 and the highest bid was of Rameshwar Dass-respondent no4. It was accepted. It is also stated in the said Order sheet that 35% amount (i.e. about Rs.1 lac as stated by Mr.Goyal) was deposited. After receiving the police report, the allotment order was to be issued. The auction sheet is at Annex.3 . Surprisingly, her name was shown and not only that the amount of bid was also mentioned against her name. According to the petitioner, it contained signatures of the respondent no.4 only.

(5). Aggrieved of the auction sheet at Annex.3, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner R.A.A. respondent no. 2 on the ground that she was never served with the notice of auction as no order to that effect was passed by the Allotting Authority. From the order of R.A.A., it appears that the record was called for and from the record, it appears that the auction took place only between the respondents no.4 and 5 having signatures of the respondent no.4 only and not of the respondent no.5 on the auction sheet. It also found that the auction notice does not bear any signature of the Allotting Authority or seal of the office on it. That fact which is not in dispute is that admittedly, the Allotting Authority had never pas- sed any order of issuing notice, therefore, it was not there on the record. Considering the entire record and the contentions raised before it, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and remanded the case to the Allotting Authority, Chhatargarh with a direction that fresh auction notice be issued by giving one months time to all and there after the auction proceedings be held. The order passed by R.A.A. is dated 24.2.99 (Annex.4).

(6). Aggrieved of the order at Annex. 4 passed by the R.A.A. the present respondent no.4 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue in which the petitioner had already filed caveat. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.4 instead of filing the revision petition before the Board of Revenue at Ajmer, filed the revision petition at Jodhpur camp and obtained ex-parte stay order though the caveat was filed by the petitioner. When this fact was pointed out by the petitioner, the said o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document