Hon'ble BISHNOI, J.—The petitioner has preferred this writ petition by praying the following reliefs:-

(a) by an appropriate writ order or direction, the auction of the land in question to the non-petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 by the Gram Panchayat-Pakka Saranan vide resolution No. 3 of the proceedings of Gram Panchayat dt. 6.9.86 (Annex. 5) may kindly be quashed and set aside and if any Patta (Sale-Deed) has been issued by the Gram Panchayat in pursuance to (Annex.5) that may also be set-aside.

(b) by an appropriate writ order or direction, the judgment dt. 21.3.2001 (Annex. 8) passed by the Addl. Collector, Hanumangarh may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

(c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the non-petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 may kindly be restrained from raising the construction on the plot in question adjoining to the west side of the plot No. 8-90/1, which is a public way, the circular road of village-Pakka Saranan.

(d) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(e) writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Krishna Kumar S/o Devi Lal has filed a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1994") before the Additional District Collector, Hanumangarh while challenging the resolution No. 3 dated 6.9.1986 (Annex. 5) passed by the Gram Panchayat, Pakka Sarana, wherein a decision was taken to sell sq. ft. of strip land (khancha bhumi) (hereinafter to be referred as plot in question) to the respondents No. 4 and 5.

3. The claim of Krishan Kanwar was that plot sold to respondents No. 4 and 5 forms part of a circular road of village Pakka Sarana, which is also known as "Phirni" in the local language and as per the provisions of law, the land which forms part of public way, cannot be sold by the Gram Panchayat and the action of the Gram Panchayat is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the resolution No. 3 dated 6.9.1986 of the Gram Panchayat Pakka Sarana is liable to be cancelled.

4. During the pendency of the revision petition preferred by Krishna Kumar S/o Devi Lal, the present petitioner has also preferred another revision petition challenging the same resolution No. 3 dated 6.9.1986 of the Gram Panchayat Pakka Sarana. On an application moved by the counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Additional Collector has consolidated both the revision petitions and the same is evident from para 3 of the impugned judgment dated 21st March, 2001.

5. After hearing the revision petitions, the learned Additional Collector dismissed the revision petitions while holding that the challenge made through the revision petition, to the patta issued in favour of the respondents No. 4 and 5 is suffering from a delay of 13 years and no explanation for the said delay has been offered. The learned Collector has also taken into consideration the alleged record of the Gram Panchayat and has observed that the Gram Panchayat has invited objection by issuing a notice and when no objection received, a public auction conducted on 4.8.1986 and allotment of plot in question made in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 as they were the highest bidders.

6. Being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 21st March, 2001, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

7. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and it is claimed that there is no illegality in the order dated 21st March, 2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Hanumangarh. No reply on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and respondents No. 4 and 5 has been filed.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Raman Deep Singh argued that the findings given by the learned Additional Collector in the order impugned to the effect that, the respondents No. 4 and 5 have filed app