Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Bhagwan Singh under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Gram Panchayat, Kharla in connection with the sale of certain lands.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are these. THE applicant applied to the Gram Panchayat, Kharla for sale to him of abadi land Ahata Nos. 45 and 46 measuring 5000 sq. ft. each. THE Panchayat took action under rule 37-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1954 and called for objections. Jeet Singh made an objection. He seems to have wanted to purchase the plots himself. THE Panchayat gave a decision on the 11th of December, 1955. According to that half of plot No. 45 and the whole of plot No. 46 were to be sold to Bhagwan Singh, while half of plot No. 45 along with another plot No. 26 was to be sold to Jeet Singh. THE applicant was aggrieved by this order of the Panchayat and went in appeal to the Tehsil Panchayat. His appeal was dismissed. He then went in revision to the District Judge, who however dismissed the revision holding that he had no power of revision in a case of this kind. THEreupon the present application was made in this Court. THE main contentions of the applicants are twofold - (1) That the District judge was wrong in holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision in this case. (2) That the order of the Panchayat should be set aside as the Panchayat did not follow the procedure provided by rule 37 (A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1954. So far as the first point is concerned, we are of opinion that there is no force in it. The power of revision is conferred on the District Judge under sec. 59. Under sub-sec. (2) of that section, the District judge has got the power to call for and examine the record of any suit or case which has been finally decided by a Panchayat or Tehsil Panchayat within the local limits of his jurisdiction. Now 'suit' and 'case' refer to the same words appearing in sec. 57 (1 ). A 'suit' has been defined in sec. 2, sab-sec. (12) as a civil suit triable by a Panchayat and 'case' has been defined under sec. 2 (2) as a criminal proceeding in respect of an offence triable by a Panchayat. This was neither a case nor a suit. It was an order by the Panchayat in its executive capacity, though it was appealable to the Tehsil Panchayat under sec. 58 (1 ). There could be no revision to the District Judge from such order under sec. 59. The next question is whether the Panchayat followed the provisions contained in rule 67 (A) in making the order. Now after the objection has been received (and upto that stage the Panchayat seems to have followed the rules), the Panchayat has to decide the objection. Thereafter the Panchayat has under sub-rule (3) of rule 37 (A) to fix a date, time and place for holding an auction of the land proposed to be sold. Sub-rules 1718 and 19 give power to the Panchayat to dispose of abadi lands by private sale without holding an auction. Sub-rule 20 lays down that no transfer of ownership in abadi land by the Panchayat shall be valid if the land exceeds Rs. 100/- in value. In cases of land exceeding that amount in value, sanction of various authorities has to be taken. Where the amount is more than Rs. 700/ in value, the sanction of the State Government is necessary. Now the applicant's case is that the Panchayat did not hold any auction. There is no denial of that by any of the opposite parties. As a matter of fact, the Gram Panchayat has not appeared before us to oppose this application. Jeet Singh has certainly put in appearance, but no reply has been filed on his behalf. We must, therefore, hold in accordance with the affidavit of the applicant that there was no auction in this case. Absence of an auction would be justified only under sub-rules 17,18 and 19. But there is nothing before us to come to the conclusion in this case that any of those three sub-rules apply to the facts of this case. The order of the Panchayat, copy of which is Ex. A. 5, does not show that it had in its mind those three sub-rules when it decided to sell part of the land to the applicant and part to Jeet Singh. We may also point out that it is the duty of the Panchayat when ordering sale to fix the price, for it is only when the price is known that one can say whether the sale was within the powers of the Panchayat. In this case the order for sale Ex. A. 5 does not mention the price. We do not know whether the land which has been ordered to be sold is worth more than Rs. 100/- or not. If it is worth more than Rs. 100/-, the Panchayat would have no right to sell it without sanction of proper authority under sub-rule 20. Howsoever, therefore, we look at the facts in this case, we are satisfied that the Panchayat acted against the provisions contained in rule 37-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules, 1954. We, therefore, set aside the order said to be dated the 11th December, 1955, passed by the Panchayat for the sale of plots of abadi land ahata Nos. 45 and 46 and direct that the Panchayat shall proceed to sell these plots in accordance with rule 37-A after holding an auction, if necessary. In view of the circumstances, we pass no order as to costs of this application. .;