1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4006/2007 Hari Ram & Anr. v. Gram Panchayat Gogamedi & Ors. Date of Order :: 7th August, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. S.G.Ojha, for the petitioners. .... This petition for writ is directed to challenge the order dated 27.9.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Nohar exercising powers under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”) affirming the order dated 23.4.2003 passed by the Administrative and Establishment Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti, Nohar District Hanumangarh. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat, Gogamedi sold a piece of land by way of auction to respondent Shri Sikandar. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Administrative and Establishment Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Nohar alleging therein that the land in question was reserved for allotment of land for the purpose of establishment of primary school and other government offices and as such the decision of Gram Panchayat to 2 sale the land in question to respondent Shri Sikandar was illegal. An allegation of procedural lapses too was raised by the petitioners to challenge the sale of land. The Standing Committee by its order dated 23.4.2003 rejected the appeal by holding that the land that was kept reserved for establishing primary school and other government institutions was different than the land in question and also that no procedural irregularity was committed while making sale of land. The Standing Committee gave the findings above after considering record of the Gram Panchayat. A revision petition preferred by the petitioners under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 assailing validity of the order dated 23.4.2003 also came to be rejected by order dated 27.9.2006, hence this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of counsel for the petitioners while assailing validity of the order aforesaid is that the revisional authority failed to appreciate that the record of the Gram Panchayat to prove compliance of the provisions of Rules 152, 153 and 154 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) was not available and as such the finding given with regard to compliance of the provisions while effecting sale was illegal. It is also asserted that a criminal case with regard to issuance of patta as a consequent to sale is still pending before the competent 3 authority and as such there was no occasion to declare the process of entire sale valid. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The appellate authority considered all the facts available on record and gave a finding by appropriate appreciation of the material available before it. It is true that the record of Gram Panchayat to prove compliance of provisions from Rules 152 to 154 was not available but the compliance of provisions of Rules 145 to 151 of the Rules of 1996 was examined by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority. Beside that the revisional authority dismissed the revision petition being barred by limitation. No challenge is given by the petitioners to finding of revisional authority that the revision petition itself was barred by limitation. In such circumstances, I do not find any case in favour of the petitioner warranting interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the orders impugned. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.