P.P. Naolekar, J. - (1.) As the above noted writ petitions involve similar facts and identical question of law, they are disposed of by this common order. The summarised facts indicate that the Gram Panchayat 48 GG consists of 4 villages viz., 39 GG (Jawaiwala), 40 GG, 42 GG and 48 GG (Sri Nagar). The petitioners were allotted plots by auction-sale conducted under the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (the Rules, to find mention hereinafter) on 13-8-1984, 14-8-1984, 13-8-1986 and 28-10-1986 by the Gram Panchayat 48 GG. At the relevant time Bakhtawar Singh was Sarpanch of the village Gram Panchayat. Some time in the year 1992, revision petition was filed by the Block Development Officer under Rule 272 of the Rules before the Addl. Collector challenging the allotments of plots to the petitioners made by the Gram Panchayat 48 GG. In the revision petition, directions were given by the Addl. Collector for preparation of the report in respect of the allotments of the plots. In that revision petition, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 applied for impleadment as party to the proceedings. Application was moved by the Block Development Officer for withdrawal of the revision petition and, on 3-10-1984, permission was granted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty granted to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to file separate revision petitions, if they so chose to do.
(2.) In the year 1994, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 filed separate revision petitions challenging the allotments of the plots by the Gram Panchayat 48 GG to the petitioners. The Addl. Collector has set aside the allotment of pattas in respect of different plots given to the petitioners. These orders of setting aside the pattas allotted to the petitioners are challenged in these writ petitions. 2A. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of allotment and grant of patta of the plots in the abadi land by the Gram Panchayat could be challenged in appeal within the period of 30 days as provided under Rule 270 of the Rules and, therefore, the revisional powers exercised under Rule 272 of the Rules nearly after 10 years is clearly beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the revision petitions should have been dismissed by the Addl. Collector on the ground of limitation. It has further been contended that the order passed by the Addl. Collector on the face of it is perverse. Rule 270 of the Rules provides for appeal to the Panchayat Samiti from order of the Gram Panchayat confirming sale of abadi land under Rule 265 or transfer of abadi land under Rule 266 of allotments of lands under Rule 267 read with Rule 268 within 30 days from the date of the order appealed from, excluding the time requisite for obtaining a copy thereof. Rule 272 of the Rules is in relation to the revisional power where under power of superintendence is given to the State Government or any officer or authority to whom such power is delegated by the State Government by notification, such officer or authority on his own motion or on an application being made in that behalf, for the purposes of satisfying himself/itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti or the Collector under Rule 265/266/ 267 and/or 268, may call for the record and pass an appropriate order. Rule 272 of the Rules does not provide for any period of limitation and thus normally in an appropriate case revisional powers may be exercised by the authority or any time which can be said to be reasonable time. In AIR 1969 SC 1279, State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghavnath , it has been held by the Apex Court as under : "The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised." ******************* ******************* ******************* Thus the Supreme Court has held that even when no limitation is prescribed the power conferred on the authority would be exercised within a reasonable time. Simply because Rule 272 of the Rules does not provide for any period of limitation, it does not mean that the authority on whom the power is conferred can invoke the same at any time. This is so because each and every authority on whom the power is conferred is expected to exercise the same in just and reasonable manner. The concept of exercise of power in reasonable manner inherits with it the concept of exercising the same within a reasonable time. If the power is not exercised within a reasonable time but is exercised after inordinate delay it would be exercise of power unreasonable. The reasonableness of time in which the power has to be exercised would obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. This would of course not apply where the authority comes to the conclusion that the property has been obtained by playing fraud, or if it can be demonstrated that the public interest shall suffer on account of collusion between the public officer and the private party. Fraud strikes at the very bottom of the right accrued and the right so acquired becomes non est the moment fraud is discovered. Fraud or deceit defends, or excuses no man. Fraud and justice never dwell together. A person who has befouled his hands being party to fraudulent act cannot be allowed the protection. It is maxim in law that fraud vitiates everything. Therefore, if the action is found to be fraudulent or, is against public interest being result of collusion with public authority, the revisional power can be exercised at any time. However, if it is the case of irregularity in publication and conduct of the auction-sale, the power would be required to be exercised within a reasonable time.
(3.) In the order passed by the Addl. Collector setting aside the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners, argument of the revision petitioners is taken note of as contention of the revision petitioners. They are, that the Committee of Panchas was not constituted nor a notice for public auction was issued. The auction was not conducted at the spot nor it was confirmed. All the proceedings have been clandestine and fraudulent as conducted without calling the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. The plots in question are worth lakh's of rupees and were sold at a meagre price. Some of the allottee's are near relations of the then Sarpanch and as such the Sarpanch could not have presided over the auction-sale proceedings. The findings were recorded by the respondent No. 2 on some of the contentions raised which are, that it is not clear who were the Panchas nominated for conducting the local inspection of the site and when the report was expected to be submitted by them but it was found that the report of site inspection was submitted. Thus the objection appears to be only to the effect that it is not clear who were the panchas who have submitted the report. Further, it is found that the objections were called for and thereafter the auction was held. In the auction only those persons participated in whose favour the plots were allotted. It appears that the price of the plots is very meagre, which indicates that the auction was not held after publication of the appropriate notice. The auction notice does not contain the service report, therefore, it is not clear how the auction of the plots was publicised. No resolution under Rule 262 of the Panchayat was obtained for auction of the plots nor provisions of Rule 263 were complied with. On these findings, the Addl. Collector set aside the auction-sale and cancelled the allotments of the plots to the petitioners. The findings arrived at by the officer appear to be based on surmises. When the valuable right to property is involved of the persons it is expected of the authority to give and record the positive findings as to why the right acquired by the persons in the property should be negated. The objection in the publication and conduct of sale of the property should go to the root of the matter. It is not each and every irregularity in the publication and conduct of the auction which would result in nullifying the sale. Whenever it is a case of the failure of the authority to explain its impugned decision, the Court can interfere not merely if no reasons are given but also if the reasons given are unsatisfactory. The reasons given for setting aside the auction are contradictory on the basis of very findings recorded by the authority. It does not appear from the order as to on the basis of non-following of which particular rule the auction held 10 years back was declared illegal. There is no positive finding of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law. I do not find any objection being raised by the revision-petitioners as per the arguments noted by the authority in the impugned order, that there was no Panchayat resolution directing auction of the plots in question as required under Rule 262 of the Rules. No finding has been recorded on very material question raised by the revision-petitioners that in conducting the auction-proceedings fraud was exercised by the purchasers with the connivance and active help of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat 48 GG. There is no finding recorded whether open auction was held in fact or not northers is any finding on the submission of the revision-petitioners that the whole process was only a camouflage to bestow undue benefit to some of the near relations of the then Sarpanch. If fraud was played then the power exercised by the authority under Section 272 would be said to be reasonable exercise of power even after long delay. But, if there was no fraud or injury/ to the public interest on account of collusion then the mere irregularity in publication and the conduct of the auction would not be permitted to be challenged after the lapse of so many years. On the recorded findings, normally the matter would have been set at rest by this Court. But, in the circumstances of the case, when serious fraud is alleged in the conduct of the auction-proceedings by the revision-petitioners, interest of justice, fair-play and propriety require that the matter be re-examined by the authority.;