TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that about 125 plots were sold by Gram Panchayat, Lathi by conducting auction during the period from 1. 10. 1983 to 8. 5. 1984. The Collector, Jaisalmer received certain complaints that the plots were sold by Gram Panchayat below the market rate and thereby loss has been caused to the Government. The Collector, Jaisalmer issued notice to Gram Panchayat, Lathi and examined the files of Gram Panchayat and cancelled the allotment of all 125 plots vide order dated 13. 8. 1984. The said order was challenged by way of two writ petitions namely, (1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 801/1985 (Gordhan Ram and 65 Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) and (2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3001/1984 (Ramzan vs. State of Rajasthan and Others ). The writ petitions were heard together and by a common order dated 9. 12. 1986, this Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of District Collector cancelling the sale of land in favour of auction purchasers on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to any of the auction purchasers by the Collector before passing the order dated 13. 8. 1984. This Court made it clear that it will be open for the Collector to initiate proceedings under Section 27 (A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short "the Act of 1953"), if he feels so advised. After about 7 years, several revision petitions were submitted by the Panchayat Extension Officer. Copy of one such revision petition is placed on record as Annex. 19. the only ground taken in the revision petition against sale of land by Gram Panchayat was that the land was sold below the market rate and by this, loss has been caused to the Gram Panchayat. It appears from copy of revision petition that no factual foundation has been laid for the allegation of sale of land below market price. It appears from the copy of revision petition that nothing has been said about the delay in filing the revision petition, even when the High Court permitted the respondents to take steps by order dated 9. 12. 1986. The petitioners submitted reply to the notice issued to them by Additional Collector, Jaisalmer in the above revision petitions. The petitioners specifically pointed out that the land was auctioned to them in the year 1983 and the revision petition has been filed in the year 1993 after 10 years and during this period, the petitioners enjoyed property and also invested huge amount to develop the land and, therefore, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Apart from this, the petitioners seriously disputed the allegation of sale of land below the market price. The Additional Collector, after hearing, allowed the revision petitions vide separate orders but all dated 3. 6. 1993. The Additional Collector observed that he has perused the record and also considered the entire report about auction proceedings and observed that the enquiry officer in his report found that the land in question was sold on very low price and that it was given to the persons of one community namely, Vishnoi and that the land has been sold to the relatives of Sarpanch and that before conducting the auction, it was not given due publicity. It appears from the order dated 3. 6. 1993 that the only evidence which was available before the Additional Collector was the enquiry report and though not specifically mentioned by Additional Collector but it appears that on the basis of the said report only, the Additional Collector held that the land was sold on a low price and due publicity was not given before conducting the auction.
(3.) THE petitioners, who are sixteen in number, have preferred the present writ petition to challenge the order dated 3. 6. 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the order of Additional Collector dated 3. 6. 1993 deserves to be set aside only on the ground that the Additional Collector should not have set aside the sale of land in favour of the petitioners in a revision which has been filed after inordinate delay. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners even when permission is granted by the appellate court or any higher court to take action, then that action should have been taken with promptness and the authority who has been given liberty to litigate the matter again cannot sit tight over the matter for years together and thereafter initiate the proceedings. In support of this, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay vs. Gopal Patel Volkart Ltd. and Others (1 ). ;