TYAGI, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ applications, one filed by the Gram Panchayat, Gopalpura (writ petition No. 724 of 1968) and the other filed by Sheraram (Writ Petition No. 438 of 1968), who had purchased land from the Gram Panchayat, Gopal Pura, can be disposed of by one judgment as they arise out of the facts which are common to both.
(2.) THE Government at the instance of Gram Panchayat, Gopalpura, issued a notification under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act on 23rd of April, 1965 for acquiring Khasra No. 110 measuring 8 Bighas 17 Biswas, Khasra No. 111 measuring 20 Bighas 15 Biswas for the extension of the abadi of village Gopalpura. Khasra Nos. 110 and 111 belonged to one Laduram and Khasra No. 115 belonged to the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gopalpura. It appears that the Government issued notifications under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act and thereafter notices under sec. 9 were served on the owners of these lands for determining the compensation but for one reason or the other the compensation could not be determined by the Collector (in this case Sub Divisional Officer who was appointed as Collector for this purpose.) Before the award could be given by the Collector, the Sub-Divisional Officer got the possession of Khasra No. 115 transferred to the Gram Panchayat, When the Collector tried to get the possession of Khasra Nos. 110 and 111, Laduram objected to the transfer of possession and he resisted the taking of the possession of his lands. Thereupon, it so appears that poilce force was employed by the Collector to oust Laduram from Khasra Nos. 110 and 111-A complaint was lodged against this high-handed dispossession of Laduram whereupon the Collector of the District made enquiries and submitted his report to the Government that possession of the lands could not be taken from Ladhuram as neither the award was given under sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Land acquisition Act nor was any notification issued under Sec. 17 of the said Act. As such the attempt to oust Laduram from the possession of Khasra Nos. 110 and 111 was uncalled for. It so appears that the Gram Panchayat, Gopalpura took it that the acquisition was complete and sold these lands by auction to the purchasers. Sheraram is one of the purchasers of a plot out of these plots. After the report of the Collector dated 31st January, 1966 (Ex-R) was received by the Government, it took its hands off and this attitude of the Government necessitated the Gram Panchayat and the purchaser to come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the Panchayat may be allowed to complete the sale in favour of the 33 vendees who were the purchasers of the plots that were carved out of the land in question and that they may be allowed to remain in possession and make constructions and the respondents, including the Government, may be prohibited to interfere in the matter and not to further consider the objections filed before it by Laduram and others. Reply has been filed on behalf of Laduram as well as by the Government. The Government, along with its reply, has placed or record the report of the Collector dated 31st of January, 1966, which clarifies the entire situation. In this case the award was not given by the Collector under sec. 11, nor did the Government issue any notification under section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the question of dispossessing the respondents, whose land was sought to be acquired, does not arise at all. The action taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer by calling the police to oust Laduram and others from their fields was uncalled for and was not permitted by law. In these circumstances, even if the respondent were dispossessed from the land that dispossession was illegal and that dispossession would not go to permit the land to vest in the Government and as such the Government was not entitled to transfer that land to the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat could not dispose it of to the prospective vendees If the Gram Panchayat had sold the land to Sheraram and 32 other persons, then it was an unauthorised act of the Gram Panchayat and this sale does not transfer the rights of ownership in the land to the so called vendees Since no right has been created in the land in favour of the Gram Panchayat and its vendees, they are not entitled to get any protection from this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This Court, therefore, feels that it cannot extend any protection even to the purchasers who had purchased the land from the Gram Panchayat under a bona fide belief that the Gram Panchayat had lawfully acquired the land for the extension of abadi of the village. For the reasons mentioned above, both these writ petitions fail and they are therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. . ;