M.L.JAIN, J. - (1.) THE facts are that the village Panchayat, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar, allotted a plot of land, measuring 6,300 Sq ft. in dispute on 11.8.59 to the petitioner, Karam Chand on a rent of Rs. 100/ - per year for raising a dairy farm. One of the conditions of allotment was that if the petitioner did not put up the dairy farm and utilised, the land for some other purpose, then the allotment was liable to cancellation. The petitioner instead of putting up a dairy farm installed a saw machine. A notice on 21.4.60 was issued to the petitioner Karam Chand. He refused to offer any explanation for contravention of the condition and challenged the Panchayat to do whatever it liked. The Panchayat cancelled the allotment of land on 1.5.60. The Panchayat also held that he had created nuisance and obstruction, and there fore, also imposed a fine of Rs. 15/ - and directed that the petitioner shall pay a fine of a rupee a day a long as his disobedience of its direction continued.
(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti which by is order dated 20.9.62 set aside the order of the Panchayat together with the fine and penalty. The Panchayat Samiti also allowed the petitioner to continue his saw machine. The District Development Officer however, reported on 21.1.67 the matter to the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who, on 28.6.67 quashed the order of the Panchayat Samiti. Yet, upon an application made by respondent Laxman Das, three members of the Panchayat inquired and found that the machine and the constructions on the land belonged, in fact, to him. On 1 -8.67, the Gram Panchayat therefore sold the same plot for Rs. 2,000/ - to respondent Laxman Das, under Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. The petitioner filed a review application before the Additional Collector against his order of 28.6.67. The Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar stayed his order on 5 8.67. However, in ignorance of this stay order, the Collector upon the request of the Panchayat made on 21.9.67 confirmed the sale in favour of Laxman Das 27.9.67. The Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, then dismissed the review petition of the petitioner Karam Chand on 15.1.68. He, however, reviewed his order dated 28 6 67 and cancelled the same on 28.1 68.
(3.) THE petitioner, then, filed, an application before the Collector on 2.2.68 that the matter of confirmation of sale be reconsidered Thereupon the Collector by his judgment dated 19.11.68 agreed to do so and set aside the confirmation of sale and directed that petitioner Karam Chand shall continue to occupy the land. Against this, order, respondent Laxman Das filed a revision before the Revenue Appellate authority. The said authority by its order dated 3.6.71, modified the order of the Collector, upheld the sale in favour of Laxman Das upon the condition that he she 11 pay Rs. 4,000/ - in place of Rs. 2,000/ - 10 the Panchayat. Aggrieved by this order the present petition has been filed by Karam Chand.;