Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that he was given land in question on rent on 01.08.1987, upon which, shop was constructed by him being tenant upon the 15' land and he is doing business upon the said land.

2. The case of the petitioner is that an application was filed by him for purchase of that land and the Gram Panchayat proceeded to make the sale in his favour of the said land in accordance with the Rules of 1996; but, vide Annex.-6, restriction was imposed by the State Government when approval was sought for finalization of the sale of the land. According to Annex.-6 and Annex.-R/1, the Government gave clear direction that the Gram Panchayat cannot sell the land which is given on rent under Rule 156 for the area which is situated near Ramdeora temple which is important religious place of the State. The State Government has further imposed restriction not to sell any land without any plan by the Gram Panchayat.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to restriction imposed by the Government, many persons who were admittedly tenants of the Gram Panchayat they were given land on rent; but, sale was executed in their favour, therefore, the respondents cannot discriminate the case of the petitioner and the petitioner is also entitled to get the land under the sale though he is tenant of the Gram Panchayat upon the said land which is situated nearby the area of Ramdeora Temple. The whole basis of the claim of the petitioner is that prior to restriction imposed by the Government, the sale was made by the Gram Panchayat in accordance with Rule 156 of the Rules of 1996 and sale was finalized with the approval of the State Government to other tenants, therefore, direction may be given to respondents while quashing Annex.-6 to confirm the sale made in favour of the petitioner by the Gram panchayat which has been approved in the cases of similarly situated persons vide Annex.-8 and Annex.-9.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Government vehemently argued that the Ramdeora Temple is wholly spiritual place of the State and the Gram panchayat cannot sell the land for shops which is given on rent to the tenants; but, repeatedly, the Gram Panchayat was selling the land, therefore, at the time of approval sought in the case of the petitioner, restriction was imposed vide Annex.-6 and Annex.-R/1, in which, there is no illegality.

5. Further, it is submitted by the counsel for the State Government that no regularization can be claimed as a matter of right. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the State that the order of the State Government is in consonance with the Panchayati Raj Act and the rules framed thereunder because, as per Rule 156 of the Rules of 1996, the Gram Panchayat can transfer any abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation in certain conditions where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price. Secondly, where there is a trespass or for any other reason, to be recorded in writing, the Gram Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land, the Panchayat may enter into private negotiation for sale of the land. Thirdly, where it is strip of land as per sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 144 and, there is only one applicant, the Gram Panchayat can sell such strip of land by sale in favour of the sole applicant. However, in no case such abadi land can be transferred on a rate below the index-ratefixed by Sub-Registrar and conveyed by the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti as the prevailing market price for the village and such market price shall not be less than double the price fixed for the bazaarn or commercial area; meaning thereby, there is no provision under Rule 156 to sell the land to the tenant of the Panchayati Raj institution. Further, it is provided that for letting out of the Panchayat buildings and shops, there is Rule 164, in which, there is provision for evictio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document