IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 202 of 1996 PUSHKAR DAYAL V/S DY.DISTT DEVELOPMENT OFICER BHILWARA & ORS Mr. R.S. SHEKHAWAT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. ALKESH AGARWAL, DEPUTY GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, for the respondent Date of Order : 27.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.95, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, whereby the petitioner had challenged the order dated 12.9.95, passed in suo-moto exercise of power of revision, and whereby 'Patta' granted to the petitioner, has been set aside. It has been found by the learned Single Judge, that the 'Patta' granted to the petitioner is void-ab-initio, power of the Gram Panchayat to allot the 'Patta' is subject to the provisions of the General Rules of 1961, and no grant can be made in violation thereof, and if made, that can be set aside even by exercising suo-moto powers. This appeal came up for hearing on 11.10.06, and the Division Bench observed, that the dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 200'x100' situate in Labour Colony on Gulabpura-Hurda Road, Tehsil Gulabpura. It was also observed, that the land was allotted somewhere in 1971, and was cancelled in 1984, then, it was noticed that the appellant claims to be in possession of the land, and to have sold some portion of it to third parties. Then, it was further observed that as the question of possession may have some bearing on the outcome of the appeal, and therefore the Tehsildar Gulabpura, was directed to make local inspection, and ascertain the factum of possession, so also as to whether any construction has been made on the land in question. Accordingly, the Tehsildar submitted his report before this Court, being dated 16.11.2006, and reported, that there is no Labour Colony on Hurda Road, but it is situated in municipal area of Gulabpura, and then, efforts were made to personally contact the petitioner, but he could not be located(जनकर नह ह पय ). Thus, in our opinion, it is not clearly shown, that either there is tangible evidence of any possession, or that there is any construction. Be that as it may. We have heard learned counsel on the merits also, and have gone through the documents produced in the original writ petition, which include Annexure-6, being photostat copy of the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat, wherefrom we find, that on 1.1.71 file was opened, and then on 10.1.71, the auction was fixed to be conducted on 18, 19 and 20th January, 1971. Then the next is the order-sheet dated 24.1.1971, reciting that the applicant Gulabchand had filed an application, which was registered and file was opened and notice inviting objections were issued, and after expiry of limitation report was obtained from the members. Then proclamation of auction was issued and auction was held, wherein the highest bid received was of Rs.1355/-, which was accepted, and since the amount has been received, the file was sent for approval. It is informed by the learned counsel, that the application being Annex.1 was filed by the applicant, for being given a land on 31.12.70. Thus, all said and done, undisputed fact remains, that all proceedings, right from receiving application till conducting auction, has been completed within a period of less than a month. In this background, a look at the provisions of the rules shows, that according to Rule 256 the application may be received alongwith the fees, which is to be deposited to meet the fee for preparation of plan of the land sought to be purchased. Then according to Rule 257 the plan is to be got prepared by a “competent person”. Then under Rule 258 after the plan is ready, the Panchayat shall, by resolution nominate any three of it's Panchas for holding local inspection of the site. Then according to Rule 259, thereafter, the Panchayat is to decide at a meeting, as to whether the proposed sale should or should not be made, and if it decides not to make the sale, the application shall be rejected. Then according to Rule 260 if the Panchayat provisionally decides that the sale should be made, then it is to publish a notice in Form L, inviting objections to the proposed sale, within one month from the date of publication, in the manner as provided in sub-rule (2), which notice is to be affixed at conspicuous place on the land proposed to be sold, and one copy be returned to the Panchayat, after obtaining signatures of at least two respectable persons of the locality. Then according to Rule 261 the objections are to be disposed of. Then according to Rule 262, after disposal of the objections, the Panchayat by its resolution is to order the auction of the land proposed to be sold, on a date, not earlier than one month from the date of the resolution, and at the time and place to be specified, whereupon a proclamation is to be issued, in the manner provided under Rule 133(2). Needless to say that Annex.6 even purports to show the compliance of all these Rules, in its flagrant breach only, inasmuch as, just after filing of the application, the auction was held on 18, 19 & 20. Thus, the provisions of Rule 259, 260 and 261 have been given a complete go-bye. That apart, even for the purpose of Rule 262, there is no resolution of the Panchayat, deciding to sale the land by auction, nor is there any resolution of the Panchayat taking provisional decision to sale the land, nor is there any resolution of the Panchayat nominating any three of its Panchas to hold local site inspection. In these circumstances, to say the least, it is writ large, that the so called Patta has been granted, without complying with any of the relevant provisions of the rules, as if the Panchayat was an autocrat body, which could issue any Patta on the liking of Sarpanch, or some of its members, oblivion of the rules altogether. In our view such Patta can be said to be no better than void-ab-initio. Thus, the impugned order does not require any interference in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /vij /