PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition has impugned the order of Revisional Authority. In revision, the Revisional Authority has quashed a grant made in favour of the petitioner had his near relatives. THE petitioner was at the relevant time, Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Udasar. Even, recently he continues to be Up-Sarpanch.
(2.) AN application was field by the petitioner for the purchase of land in view of Rule 256 and 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961' ). While the application was processed, site was inspected as required by Rule 258 of the Rules of 1961. A Committee of three members for inspection of site was constituted by Panchayat including the petitioner. Since, the Committee of Members for inspection of site included the petitioner, he did not participate in the inspection. The inspection was carried out only by two members namely Shri Sukh Singh and Shri Mohbtaram. After inspection, a notice under Rule 260 of the Rules of 1961 was published. The petitioner has submitted that even if it is assumed that notice did not fulfill the requirement of Rule 260, yet till date no objection was raised in relation to the allotment. Further, such objections have not even been made, when the construction was raised at the site. There had been a prejudice going on against the petitioner due to political rivalry. Some criminal complaints have even been lodged alleging false reports against him. Such reports have resulted which had resulted into filing of final report by the Investigation Agency. After processing of the application of the petitioner a resolution was drawn by the Panchayat being Resolution No. 3 dt. 20. 7. 1989. By this resolution, allotments were made to as many as 119 persons. Out of these 119 persons, 10 persons belonged to the family of the petitioner. For all these allotments, same procedure was adopted. The petitioner claims that consequent to the aforesaid resolution, a patta was issued in his favour vide order dt. 5. 6. 1990. The patta has been produced and marked as Annex. 2. It has been claimed by the petitioner that patta has also been signed by the person who prepared the map at site. In the meanwhile, a complaint filed against the allotment made to the petitioner was processed. Preliminary enquiry in this regard was conducted by Panchayat Prasar Adhikari. After submission of the report of this preliminary enquiry, a revision came to be filed before the District Collector as per provisions of Sec. 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994' ). The petitioner claims that though this revision was filed, but there is remedy of appeal available under sec. 61 of the Act of 1994. A notice of revision was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the revision petition and submitted his oral submissions against the maintainability and merits of the revision petition. Ultimately, the revision petition was allowed by the Collector vide order dt. 30. 12. 2000. The said order dt. 30. 12. 2000 has been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that basic allegation against him was that the land was purchased at a throw away price. This allegation has not been gone into. The revision has only been decided only on the question of infraction of various Rules. The Revisional Authority has also not considered the fact that petitioner was in old possession of land. The petitioner has also denied that he had purchased the land at throw away price. The petitioner impugns the order under challenge by claiming that a revision petition filed after a long lapse of time should not have been entertained. The maintainability of such revision could only be there if a fraud is involved. In the instant case, no fraud can be seen. Further, when there is a remedy of appeal available and long time has elapsed, such exercise of revisional jurisdiction is unauthorised. The findings of the revisional authority that a vague description of land has been given is ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Rule 256 of the Rules of 1961. The Rule only requires that identity of land is only required to be fixed. The infraction alleged against the petitioner that the inspection was not made by three members is also not correct in the manner alleged. Enquiry is required to be made by a Committee of three member. Since, one of the members of the Committee who was required to inspect the site was petitioner himself. It was in this background that the petitioner has to opt out, therefore inspection was made by two members only. Issuance of notice under Sec. 262 have been claimed to be rightly done by the petitioner. The petitioner has also claimed the finding of the Revisional Authority that `naksha' has not been signed by the person making Naksha is factually incorrect. In fact, patta was issued to the petitioner after approval of the Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti through there was no requirement of taking such prior permission. The whole exercise of entertaining the revision and filing of complaint is actuated by political rivalry and malafides. The revisional powers could only be exercised after calling of records. Such application of the petitioner was rejected by the Collector and therefore, it was not bonafide exercise of powers.
(3.) NOTICES were issued to the respondents. The respondents joined the issue and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 contested the stand of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner was never in possession of the land in question. No proof has been filed in support of the claim petition that he is in possession of the land. the land are at about 1 1/2 kms. away form the area of Bikaner City and National Highway. It is a very costly piece of land which has been taken away by the petitioner without following law. The petitioner's application was not entered in Register Form No. 49 as required under Rule 257 (1) of the Rules of 1961. Curiously, while the petitioner was member of the Committee, the proceedings were taken regarding issuance of patta. While has case was being processed, he could not have participated in the proceedings regarding issuance of patta in his own favour and also in favour of his relations. The answering respondent has alleged that it has come to the notice of present Sarpanch and other members of Panchayat the petitioner had signed a good number of pattas and they are blank otherwise. Copies have been shown to the Court at the time of hearing. Having done such acts, if the petitioner raised bogy of political rivalry, then he is not responding correctly. The petitioner having known that register has been misplaced and, the same was not available to be produced claimed its production. It was clearly recorded that the application and proceedings in relation to grant of patta in favour of the petitioner were available and such original record was produced before the revisional court and has also been produced before this Court. It cannot be said that revision has been decided without going through the record. The respondent has stated that entire proceedings have been recorded in the hand-writing of the petitioner, whereas, it was mandatory that he should not have participated in the proceedings in question because they were in relation to his own claim. The petitioner in the rejoinder has stated that it is incorrect to say that lands are at a distance of about 1 1/2 kms. away from the City of Bikaner. At the time of allotment, the distance from Bikaner City was 4 kms. and 2 1/2 kms. from National Highway. The petitioner has reiterated his stand in the writ petition. ;