KHET MAL Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of order Ex. 9 passed on July 30, 1983 by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and prays for quashing the same.

(2.) MATERIAL facts leading to this writ petition may briefly be recounted as under: Gram Panchayat, Chohtan (district Barmer) issued a notice for sale of the plot of land in dispute by public auction. The auction took place on March 2 and 3, 1981. The petitioner made the last and the highest bid for a sum of Rs. 9991/ -. His bid was accepted and he deposited 20% of the sale price immediately on the spot. As the bid of the land auctioned exceeded Rs. 5000/ - in amount, the Panchayat applied for approval of the Collector, Banner as required under Rule 265(3)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (here in after to be referred to as 'the Rules'). The Collector, Banner, by his order Ex. 6 gave his approval. The petitioner there after deposited the remaining balance of Rs. 7991/ -in the Panchayat on September, 23, 1982. Bhagwan Das, who is respondent No. 2 in this writ petition, filed a revision before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur against the aforesaid order of the Collector. The Revenue Appellate Authority heard the parties and by his impugned judgment Ex.9 dated July 30, 1983, allowed the revision, quashed the order of the Collector and set -aside the sale made in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that since the balance of the price was not paid within two months, as required under the Rules, the approval should not have been accorded by the Collector. He further held that in view of the restrictions imposed by the State Governments the action of the Panchayat in respect of the sale of the land in dispute was bad and unauthorised. He further held that certain forgeries and fabrications were also made in the documents by the Panchayat in respect of the sale of the land in dispute. It was alleged by the petitioner that the view taken by the Revenue Appellate Authority is erroneous and unsustainable. The Collector gave the approval on August 5, 1982 and the balance of the sale price was thereafter deposited on September 23, 1982. It was thus, deposited within two months of the order of the Collector. There was no material before the Revenue Appellate Authority to arrive at a conclusion that restrictions were imposed on the sale of land by the Panchayat or that forgeries were committed by the Panchayat in respect of the documents pertaining to the sale of the land in dispute. In the return filed by the Panchayat, the defence taken is that a bidder, in whose favour the auction is knocked down, is bound to pay the balance of the sale price within two months from the date of auction. The auction was made on March 2 and 3, 1981. The petitioner was, therefore, required to deposit the balance within two months from March 3, 1981. The deposit of the balance was, admittedly, made on September 23, 1982. Since the balance was not paid within two months from the date of the auction, the Collector should not have accorded, the approval. The action of the Collector in giving approval by his order Ex. 6, thus, contravenes the mandatory provisions of Rule 263 of the Rules. When the matter went for approval before the Collector, the period of two months had already expired. It appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Collector and approval was sought by suppressing this material fact.

(3.) THE pertinent question arising in this writ petition is whether the impugned order Ex. 9 of the Revenue Appellate Authority suffers from any legal infirmity and should, therefore, be quashed.