BHAGWAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Bhagwan Lal, by the instant writ petition has impugned the order dated 24th of December, 1996 passed by the District Collector, Rajsamand, whereby sale of a piece of land measuring 100 x 80 at village Tikkad by Gram Panchayat Khakharmala to him on 30.01.1990 was annulled. The learned District Collector passed the said order on a revision petition of the fourth respondent under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1953 read with Section 124(1) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, "Act of 1994") taking note of violation of the mandatory provisions of Rules 262 to 265 contained under the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short, "Rules of 1961").

(2.) The bare necessary facts, for the purpose of this writ petition are that Gram Panchayat, Khakharmala auctioned/allotted certain residential plots pursuant to its resolution dated 23rd of December, 1989 and a plot measuring 100 x 80 was purchased by the petitioner at the cost of Rs. 500. In the auction proceedings undertaken by the Gram Panchayat, in all 15 persons were sold plots of different denominations. Being aggrieved from the auction of plots, more precisely auction of plot in favour of petitioner, the fourth respondent preferred a revision petition under Section 27A of the Act of 1953 read with Rule 272 of the Rules of 1961 before the District Collector, Rajsamand. In the revision petition, it was inter-alia averred by the fourth respondent that the entire auction proceedings were undertaken by the Gram Panchayat in utter disregard of Rules 262 to 265 of the Rules of 1961 and no prior 30 days auction notification was issued for the same. It is also alleged in the revision petition that the sale pursuant to auction was not approved by the competent officer. With all these averments, the fourth respondent craved for cancellation of the auction of plot in favour of petitioner.

(3.) The revision petition was contested by the petitioner. While referring to the other incumbents, to whom plots were sold in auction, the petitioner has averred that those plots were allotted to some of the individuals belonging to the privileged class of the society free of cost and the plot was sold to the petitioner after undertaking all requisite formalities envisaged under the Rules of 1961. As regards the inadequate consideration of the land, petitioner has submitted in reply that land was situated at a far off distance from Abadi area and therefore at the relevant point of time its value was worth Rs. 500 only. Questioning the locus of the fourth respondent, petitioner has also averred that the revision petition is outcome of political vengeance and therefore it is liable to be rejected.