Bapna - (1.) THIS is petition under Art 226 of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner is that Ahata 11/12 in village 40 F, Tehsil Karanpur, was proposed to be sold by the Gram Panchayat of Arayan, and it was concluded in favour of non-petitioner No. 4 Sampuran Singh on the 27th October 1957. It is alleged that the petitioner approached the Tehsil Panchayat for setting aside the sale but his appeal was rejected on the 6th January, 1953. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain rules which will be referred hereafter made under Sec. 89(2) of|the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. XXI) of 1953 were not followed and, therefore, thi Court should interfere and set aside this sale.
(2.) THE first objection is that under para 20 of rule 37-A, there should have been the approval of the Divisional Panchayat Officer as the value of the land sold was over Rs. 100/- (the sale price being Rs. 132/-). This objection has no force; for as we read the order of the Gram Panchayat, two plots were sold, each of the value of Rs. 66/-, and as such the value of the each plot of land sold was less than Rs. 100/-. It was urged that this device was adopted to circumvent the law. This may be so but the language of the rule is clear, and it is only applicable if a single plot of land is sold for a value more then 100 rupees. The other objection is regarding the non-observance of sub-rules (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (13), (17) and (18) of rule 37A. It appears from a perusal of the petition which was submitted by the petitioner to the Tehsil Panchayat that these objections were not taken before the Tehsil Panchayat. The objections raise questions of fact, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise these questions in this Court for the first time. The petitioner, therefore, cannot succeed. There is one more aspect of the case which strikes me but on which my learned brother does not wish to express any opinion. Speaking for myself, it appears to me that the various provisions in Rule 37(A) are meant for the guidance of the Panchayat and do not purport to create any right in any individual that a particular rule should be followed, or if it has not been followed, this Court should interfere and set aside the sale. Under sub-rule 17, the Panchayat is permitted to sell land even by private sale. If any sale is invalid, it is the lookout of the purchaser whether he should take the risk or not. If there is any defect in the procedure laid down in the rules, it does not creat any right in any other villager who has not acquired any interest in the land otherwise to claim that the land be resold or auctioned. The corrective can come from higher authorities who are controlling authorities in respect of the Panchayat but otherwise no individual whose present rights are not affected can challenge the sale or auction as being defective in any manner. The purchaser takes the land with whatever risk is involved due to any defect in procedure laid down for sale or auction. There is no force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed in limine.;