BALIA, J. - (1.) BY this petition, petitioner challenges the correctness of the order passed by the Collector, Churu in Civil Revision No. 11/81 on 21/9/1982 whereby he has held that the revision filed by the petitioner was not maintainable u/section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953.
(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that he has got his residential house in village Dhirwas Bada. In front of the house of the petitioner, there is a common lane used as a way which is 60 ft. in length and about 20 ft. in breadth. On the other side of this common lane, there is situated the house of the respondent Salag Ram while the houses of respondents No. 3, 4 and 6 Shanker Lal, Udai Chand and Prem Prakash are situated towards the western side of the petitioner's house. IT is further averred by the petitioner that Gram Panchayat Dhirwas Bada without following the mandatory provisions of the Rules 256, 257,259,260 & 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, has sold the part of the common lane in favour of the respondents No. 3 to 6 by its order dated 15/5/1981 by private negotiation. The petitioner aggrieved with the said sale filed a revision before the Collector, Churu against the order of Panchayat dated 15/5/81 and pattas issued in consequence thereof dated 16/5/1981 raising objections about not following the mandatory provisions of the rules in regard to the sale of the Abadi land through private negotiation. The Collector, Churu vide his order dated 21/9/1982 dismissed the revision as not maintainable on the ground that since u/r. 270 of the aforesaid Rules, 1961, appeal against the order of the Gram Panchayat lay to the Panchayat Samiti, no revision is maintainable directly before him by having recourse to section 27-A. IT is this order which is under challenge in this petition. No return has been filed on behalf of the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is contended by Mr. Bishnoi that the impugned orders suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as Collector, Churu has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law on a wholly untenable ground. His contention is that under section 27-A (1) (c) any order passed under this Act in administrative matter by a Panchayat from which no appeal lies under section 26-A, Collector is empowered to call for and examine the connected records and may confirm or vary such orders. No appeal has been provided under section 26-A in respect of sale conducted by the Panchayat through private negotiations. The fact that such remedy has been provided under the rules does not take away the jurisdiction conferred under section 27a which is wide enough to encumpass all administrative orders and specifically excluded U/s. 27-A (1) (c ). In support of his contention, counsel draws support from Padma Ram. vs. The Revenue Appellate Authority (1) and Hari Singh Vs. State of Raj. (2 ). In Hari Singh's case (supra), after taking into consideration previous decisions of this Court, it was observed as under: - "the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Panchayat under section 27 (A) of the Act, inasmuch as the order of the Gram Panchayat was appealable under section 26 (A) of the Act and there is a complete bar against the exercise of revisional powers under section 27 (A) as is envisaged by clause (c) of section 27 (A) of the Act. This question has already come up for consideration before this Court on earlier occasions and there are authorities holding that an order of the Gram Panchayat disposing of land rules 255 to 266 of the Rules in revisable. In this connection reference may be made to (1) Jagmal Singh Vs. Collector, Ganganagar S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 531/1972 decided on 31. 1. 74 and (2) Padma Ram Vs. Revenue Appellate Authority & Ors. 1978 W. L. N. (UC) 265. It has clearly been held in this case that the order of sale by the Panchayat is not an order passed under any of the powers of the Panchayat contained in Chapter III and, therefore, such an order is not appealable under section 26 (A) of the Act. Consequently, it is revisable under section 27 (A) of the Act and clause (C) of the section does not bar such a revision. It has also been pointed out that the sale of land by the Panchayat is in pursuance of the Rules made under section 88 (vi) which falls under Chapter VII and not under the powers contained in Chapter III. In Padma Ram's case (supra) the learned Single Judge has further made it clear that the rule 272 of the Rules envisages such a revision under section 27a of the Act. After discussing the relevant provisions and relying on Jagmal Singh's case, it was observed in Padma Ram's case (supra) that "the result is that all orders of the Panchayat Samiti in administrative matters which have not been passed under Chapter III are subject to the revisional jurisdiction under section 27 (A)". I am in respectful agreement with this view and, therefore, reject the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under section 27 (A) of the Act against the order of the Panchayat selling land to the petitioner. "
(3.) THE ratio of the aforesaid decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the face of the aforesaid decisions, the order of the Collector dismissing the revision on the ground that it is not maintainable Ex. 4 cannot be sustained. I, therefore, allow this petition and quash the impugned order dt. 21/9/82 (Ex. 4) and further direct the Collector, Churu to hear the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of Gram Panchayat dated 15/5/81 and against the Pattas issued in consequence thereof dated 16/5/81 on merits. There will be no order as to costs. .;