DAVE, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a writ application by one Budhsingh under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of 3-G, Chhoti, Tehsil Ganganagar. His case is that the plot No. 47 in Chak 3-G Chhoti was auctioned by the Tehsildar in his. favour on 6th May, 1947. THE petitioner being the highest bidder he deposited 25% of the amount of his bid, and he was declared to be the purchaser subject to the sanction of the Revenue Commissioner, Bikaner according to Rule 23 of the Rules for sale of Residential Sites in Urban Areas which were then prevalent in the former State of Bikaner. He proceeds to say that after the said auction the Tehsil dar submitted the papers for sanction to the competent authority but unfortunately no such sanction could be obtained before the merger of the Bikaner State with Rajasthan. On 28th August, 1961 the Collector, Ganganagar passed an order that the balance of the amount may be recovered from him and he may be put in possession of the land in dispute. THE petitioner accordingly deposited the balance with the Gram Panchayat, Chhoti on 31st August, 1961. Against the order of the Collector, Ganganagar dated the 28th August, 1961 the respondent No. 1 Shri Jeshram Singh filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. That appeal was dismissed. THE respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. It was urged, by the respondent before the Board of Revenue that after the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 came into force, the power to sell the Abadi lands vested with the Gram Panchayat, and that the Collector could not sanction the auction of the land. THE Board of Revenue upheld this contention, allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority and directed the Collector, Ganganagar to transfer the record to the Gram Panchayat for disposal according to law. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this order of the Board of Revenue dated the 25th April, 1963 by this writ petition. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client was declared to be purchaser under Rule 22 of the Bikaner Rules for the sale of Abadi lands referred above and that order was subject only to the sanction of the Revenue Commissioner as provided under Rule 23. Those rules were no doubt repealed and the power to sell the Abadi land was conferred on the Panchayat under the Rajasthan Act, 1953, but no provision was made in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 which will here-in-after be referred as "the Act" for finalising the sales which had already taken place under the Bikaner Rules. According to the learned counsel, the Board of Revenue erred in holding that the Collector, who had taken the place of the Revenue Commissioner, Bikaner had no jurisdiction to accord sanction. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order of the Board of Revenue dated the 25th April, 1963 may be quashed. The application has been contested on behalf of respondent No. 1. His learned counsel has urged in reply that even under the Bikaner Rules no valid title in the land had passed to the petitioner because the sale under Rule 22 was subject to the sanction of the Revenue Commissioner as provided under Rule 23. On the petitioner's own showing no sanction was given by the Revenue Commissioner under the rules and thus the petitioner had acquired no legal right which could be enforced by this Court. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for either party and we think that there is force in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1. It is conceded by the petitioner himself in his writ application that although he was the highest bidder at the auction and he had deposited even 1/4th of the amount of the highest bid the sale was not sanctioned in his favour by the Revenue Commissioner under Rule 23 of the Bikaner Rules. Under the circumstances no valid title in the property had passed to the petitioner. It may be further pointed out that the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 came into force on the 31st October, 1953 and under sec. 88, sub-sec. (1), clause (vi) all Government lands lying within the Abadi area of the Panchayat circle vested in the Panchayat. Since the petitioner had not become the owner of the property by a valid purchase before the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 came into force, and the disputed property had vested in the Gram Panchayat, it could be sold only by the Gram Panchayat under Rule 37 (a) of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1944, which were later replaced by the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyay Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. It is obvious that the petitioner has no existing right in the property which may be enforced by this Court. He is only entitled to the refund of the money which he had deposited with the Government. There is, therefore, no force in this writ application and it is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances the parties are to bear their own costs. .;