BERI, J. - (1.) THESE two second appeals have been preferred by the same defendant Dhanraj and are directed against one judgment of the District Judge, Ganganagar, dated the 16th April, 1965 in a suit for declaration and possession. Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this one judgment.
(2.) THE circumstances which give rise to the present appeals briefly stated are these: In village Bolawali, which is within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, Jandawala, there are two plots of land bearing No. 640 and 641. Kashi Ram respondent in civil appeal No. 241 of 1965 purchased plot No 640 from the Gram Panchayat on the 15th March, 1957. His case is that he was put in possession but the defendant Dhanraj unlawfully dispossessed him. Likewise Hariram, who is a son of Kashiram purchased plot No. 641 from the same Gram Panchayat and he also alleges that he was put in possession of the said plot of land but came to be dispossessed by the defendant Dhanraj, who is an appellant in both these appeals. Proceedings under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started by Dhanraj which ended in his favour. This necessitated both Kashiram and Hariram to institute two civil suits for declaration and possession of the plots of land bearing Nos. 640 and 641 respectively. THE defence of Dhanraj was that he was in possession of the said plots of land for some 7 or 8 years and that he never dispossessed Kashiram or Hariram. His other plea was that the purported sale-deed by the Gram Panchayat, Jandawala was a collusive transaction between Sarpanch Vichitrasingh, Secretary Khemchand and the two plaintiffs, namely Kashiram and Hariram, and had not the effect of transferring the property to the plaintiffs. THE Civil Judge, Hanumangarh, decided the suits in fa\our of the plaintiffs. Defendant Dhanraj preferred two appeals and both of them were disposed of by the learned District Judge by one judgment dated the 16th April, 1965, holding inter alia that it was not open to Dhanraj to challenge the title of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs having title in their favour they were entitled to succeed as against Dhanraj who was a rank trespasser. Dhanraj is still dissatisfied and has come up in second appeals against both the decrees passed by the District Judge, Ganganagar. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the case before me involved alleged transfers by a public body and were open to attack by the appellant because he had at least the argument of possession in his favour, and sec. 110 of the Indian Evidence Act came to his rescue. Learned counsel further invites attention to rule 37-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1954, which provides for a very elaborate procedure for the sale of abadi land within the jurisdiction of panchayats and lands which belong to a panchayat or in regard to which it has power of disposal under law and complains that there are many infirmities in the purported sale arising out of the violations of the steps indicated in the said rules. He has invited my attention also to a decision of this court in Sardarmal vs. The State of Rajasthan (1), wherein Jagat Narain, J. has expressed the opinion that the provisions of rule 37-A (9) are mandatory, and that although the Panchayat sells land which vests in it, it nevertheless sells public property. "it is made clear by sub-rule (21) that no transfer of ownership in Abadi land belonging to the Panchayat shall be valid unless it is in accordance with rule 37-A", and the learned Judge expressed his dissent with an obitor of Bapna, J. in Gurdayal Singh vs. Gram Panchayat, Arayan (1959 RLW 3 ). I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Jagat Narayan, J. and take this opportunity of adding that wherever legislature confers a power on a statutory body to dispose of public property and lays down certain rules prescribing the method and the safe guards subject to which such alienations can take place then mandatory provisions thereof have to be obeyed, and it is open to a party affected by such alienation to challenge its validity. Disposal of public property is a matter of public interest and is, therefore, to that extent distinguishable from private transfers. The view that I take, therefore, entitles the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the validity of the transfers made by the Gram Panchayat, Jandawala on 15th March, 1957 in favour of Kashiram and Hariram. The learned District Judge was in error when he refused to scrutinise this aspect of the matter Ordinarily therefore, I should have remanded this case for the appraisal of evidence led on the point of invalidity of transfers to the District Judge, Ganganagar, but the learned counsel for the parties agree that it will be more convenient if the case is remanded back to the trial court, namely, the Civil Judge, Hanumangarh because they desired to lead additional evidence. The precise issue on which I allow the parties to lead evidence is "whether the transfers of plots Nos. 640 and 641 situated village in Bolawali were made in favour of the plaintiffs in accordance with the provisions laid down in rule 37-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1954. " The defendant has been negligent in not leading full evidence on the subject and the learned counsel for the respondents has given his consent in terms as to costs. I, therefore, direct that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff in each of the suit a sum of Rs. 25/- by way of costs which will be paid as a condition precedent before the parties are permitted to lead any evidence. The two appeals are, therefore, allowed, and the costs of these two appeals and that of the courts below shall abide the result before the Civil Judge, Hanumangarh. .;