IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R (1) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 461/97. Shri Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Others (2) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 462/97 Shri Ram Chandar v. State of Rajasthan & Others DATE OF ORDER :::: 21-01-2008 PRESENT HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI MOHAMMAD RAFIQ REPORTABLE. Mr. D. R. Bhandari, for Petitioners. Mr.Shyam Ladrecha, G.A., for Respondents. BY THE COURT: These two writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the District Collector dated 24th of December, 1996, whereby allotment of certain piece of land made in favour of the petitioners by way of auction by Gram Panchayat, Khakharmala has been ordered to be cancelled. When father of one of the petitioner Shri Prakash was the said Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, at the relevant point of time, he auctioned certain lands to his relatives and friends. The auction was said to have been held in the year, 1989. Respondent No.4 filed a revision petition under Section 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953') before the District Collector. In the meantime, the Government initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the Sarpanch. One of the charges against him was illegal allotment of the plots by way of auction virtually in his own favour i.e. in favour of his wife, son and wife of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat etc. Sarpanch Mohanlal was placed under suspension pending enquiry. He approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3492/93. Initially, stay order was passed in regard to the order of his suspension, but subsequently, it appears that the writ petition was dismissed on 24th December, 2005, having become infructuous. The inquiry was held against him and on the basis of finding in the enquiry that he was guilty of abuse of the office, the Government directed the Collector to cancel all such illegal allotments. The Collector, by order dated 24.12.1996, while allowing the revision petition filed by respondent No.4, cancelled the allotment. The Collector, in the impugned order, has referred to the order passed by the Government dated 15.4.93 to the above facts. Order of the Collector is under- challenge in these writ petitions. I have heard Shri D. R. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Shyam Ladrecha, learned Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents. Shri D. R. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Collector has, in his order, solely relied on the earlier order of the Government dated 15.4.93, whereby a direction was given to cancel the allotment made by the Gram Panchayat when Mohan Lal was its Sarpanch. But the petitioner was not a party to such proceedings before the Government. Such order therefore could not be enforced against the petitioner. It was argued that the Collector was required to apply his own mind independently, without being influenced by any such direction of the Government. The only ground on which the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was challenged, was that it was not got confirmed from the competent authority as per Rule 265 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1961'), which merely provides that where the bid of the land auction does not exceed Rs.100/-, a copy of the proceedings of the bid shall be sent by the Gram Panchayat to the Sub-Divisional Officer of the area within three days of the acceptance thereof. If no objection to the acceptance of the bid is received within a period of one month of its receipt, the Panchayat shall proceed with the finalization of the auction. In the present case, the bid was more than Rs.100/-, therefore, this provision was not attracted. Learned counsel further argued that the respondent No.4 had no locus standi to challenge the allotment in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as the revision petition under Section 262 of the Act was filed by enormously delay in 1995, whereas the auction had taken place in 1989. It was argued that the petitioner had also approached Civil Court and the Civil Court, while finding a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, passed an injunction order against the respondents on 19th September, 1995. The order of the Government, in any case, could not be relied upon by the Collector, because the operation and effect of the same had been stayed by this Court in the writ petition filed by Shri Mohan Lal Sharma. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without application of mind which violated provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Order passed by the Collector is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the allotment made in fravour of the petitioner be restored. Shri Shyam Ladrecha, learned Government Counsel, opposed the writ petition and urged that it is a case of misuse of the authority of the office of Sarpanch who was father of petitioner Shri Prakash. It was argued that even if revision petition was filed after more than six years of the date of the auction, that cannot be taken to be so enormous a delay, particularly when in the disciplinary proceedings against the Sarpanch, charges of abuse of office by him were established. It was submitted that the Collector was very much competent to pass the order and he passed the order after hearing them all, therefore, it cannot be said that the order was passed by him without hearing the petitioners. There was thus no violation of principles of natural justice. Shri Shyam Ladrecha, learned Government Counsel, also argued that the land in question was converted from 'Charnot' to 'Abadi' in the reserved area and the allotment of the same was required to be made by the Gram Panchayat to the weaker section of the society, including the Scheduled Caste. However, the then Sarpanch, Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, manipulated the records, by showing the allotment of the same by way of auction in favour of his near and dear ones, in contravention of the Rules. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Facts of the case reveal that allotment in question though was shown to have been made by way of auction, but it was indeed a great co-incidence that participants in such auction were none other than the wife of the then Sarpanch, Smt. Rekha; Smt. Pushpa Devi, the wife of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat; Ram Chandra, son of the Ward Panch of the Gram Panchayat; Shri Prakash, son of the Sarpanch; and one Kishan Singh, who is stated to be friend of the then Sarpanch. Facts also reveal that on the self-same allegations, the petitioner was proceeded against in the disciplinary action by the Government and the order dated 15th of March, 1993 which is on record, shows that the Government, upon hearing the Sarpanch Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, directed for cancellation of the allotments of land made in favour of his wife and son. It appears from the record that Sarpanch Shri Mohanl Lal Sharma himself supervised and completed all the official formalities of the auction. It is in the back-drop of these facts that this Court is required to consider alleged infraction of principles of natural justice. Complaint of violation of the principles of natural justice would have to be always examined in the facts of a given case on the touch-stone of prejudice caused. In the present case , however, allotments being only six in number and most of them having been made in favour of the kith and kin of the Sarpanch and the secretary, the petitioner, in order to secure the writ of mandamus in his favour, was required to prima facie satisfy the Court that the allotments were made by following the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1961. Injunction order passed by the Civil Court, on which reliance has been placed, was merely to the effect that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question, except by due process of law. The inquiry that was held by the Government against the Sarpanch, although was also directed against the Sarpanch only where he was provided with an opportunity of hearing, but the petitioners were very much party in the revision petition before the District Collector. Even if the District Collector, in his order, has relied on the order passed by the Government, the petitioner was never-the-less required to show as to whether the allotments were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law. Apart from the manner in which the allotments made, the size of the plot which the Sarpanch Mohan Lal carved out for his wife, son, son of ward member of the Gram Panchayat, wife of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat etc. also indicates the misuse of the authority. Each of the plots were in the size of 100' x 80' and were auctioned in the year 1983, for a paltry sum of Rs.500/-. In the facts of the case, therefore, it cannot be said that the delay in filing the revision petition was so much as to completely deny the right to the District Collector to undo the wrong, even if the revision petition was filed six years after the date of the alleged auction. Writ is a discretionary remedy, where equitable relief can be claimed by a party on a legitimate grounds. In the facts and circumstances of the case, issue of writ on to annul an order, which order, if upheld, would only result in restoration of illegality and that, in my considered view, would not be a sound exercise of judicial discretion. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. scd.