Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THESE are two connected applications by Devilal (No. 138) and Surjaram (No. 132) against the orders of the Tehsil Panchayat, Padampur. We propose to take them together because the main points raised in them are common.
(2.) THE facts of these cases are briefly these. Surjaram applied for purchasing Khasra No. 274 for building a house in village Farsewala before the Gram Panchayat Binjwaila. Similary, Devilal applied for purchasing plots Nos. 248 and 249 in the same village for building a house before the Gram Panchayat. THE Panchayat ordered plot No. 274 to be sold to Surjaram and plots Nos. 248 and 249 to be sold to Devilal. Is seems that Hazura Singh (in case No. 138) had also applied for one of the two plots. He, therefore, appealed to the Tehsil Panchayat, Padampur under whose jurisdiction Gram Panchayat, Binjwaila is. THE Tehsil; Panchayat partly allowed the appeal and ordered that Khasra No. 248 be sold to Hazura Singh. THE sale of Khasra No. 249 in favour of Devilal remained undisturbed. In case No. 139, Sukhram also apparently wanted plot No. 274. He, therefore, appealed to the Tehsil Panchayat Padampur and the Panchayat set aside the sale in favour of Surjaram and ordered the sale of plot No. 274 to Sukhram. Surjaram and Devilal were dissatisfied with the orders of the Tehsil Panchayat. Consequently they filed the present petitions. Their contentions in the two cases are - (1) That the Tehsil Panchayat had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the order of Gram Panchayat in an administrative matter. (2) That in any case, even if the Tehsil Panchayat could interfere, it should have acted in accordance with rule 37-A, and should not have ordered sale without auction to Sukhram and Hazura Singh. The applications have been opposed by Sukhram and Hazura Singh. Their case is that the Tehsil Panchayat has jurisdiction to hear appeals in administrative cases, They further contend that the Tehsil Panchayat rightly ordered the sale of the land in their favour without recourse to auction. The question whether the Tehsil Panchayat has jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders of a Gram Panchayat in administrative matters depends on the interpretation of sec. 58 (6) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. XXI of 1953) hereinafter called the Act. The main argument on behalf of the applicants is that sec. 58 appears in Chapter IV of the Act which is headed "judicial Powers of Panchayats. " It is, therefore, urged that whatever powers are conferred on the Tehsil Panchayat by sec. 58 (6) refer to judicial matters and not to administrative matters. It is no doubt true that Chapter IV of the Act deals primarily with judicial matters and the disposal of cases and suits coming before the Gram Panchayats. But a perusal of sec. 58 will show that it is really a misfit in that Chapter, for it deals with many more matters than the judicial powers of a Panchayat. We may briefly consider sec, 58. Sub-sec. (1) gives power to the State Government by notification to establish a Tehsil Panchayat consisting of a Sarpanch and six to eight Panchas elected in the prescribed manner. This sub-section obviously has not ling to do with the judicial powers of a Panchayat. Sub-sec. (2) then provides for an electoral college which will elect the members of the Tehsil Panchayat and this electoral college consists of the members of all the Panchayats in the Tehsil including Sarpanchas. Sub-sec. (3) provides that all the provisions of secs. 7 to 23 (both inclusive) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the Tehsil Panchayat. Sub-sec. (4) deals with the qualifications of those who are entitled to stand for election to the Tehsil Panchayat. It also provides that if a member of a Panchayat is elected to the Tehsil Panchayat, his seat in the Gram Panchayat will become vacant. Sub-sec. (5) provides for the transaction of business by the Panchayat which has to meet at least once in a month and the quorum for such meeting. Now all these provisions have nothing to do with the judicial work of Panchayats as such. Then comes sub-sec. (6) which we wish to quote in extenso. "a Tehsil Panchayat shall exercise general supervision over the affairs of all Panchayats established within the local limits of its jurisdiction and shall also hear appeals from all or any of the decrees, sentences, decisions, orders and directions made by such Panchayat," Now the language of this sub-section is very wide and the fact that it is in a chapter "judicial Powers of Panchayats" should not, in our opinion, detract from our giving full meaning to the language used in the body of the sub-section. The first part of sub-sec. (6) lays down that a Tehsil Panchayat shall exercise general supervision over the affairs of all Panchayats established within the local limits of its jurisdiction. These words clearly, in our opinion, imply that the Tehsil Panchayat will be a supervisory body over the Gram Panchayats within its local limits and will exercise supervision over the affairs of the Panchayats. We particularly emphasize the words "affairs" which in our opinion, implies all that the Gram Panchayat is entitled to do and particularly its administrative work. Then follows the second part which lays down that the Tehsil Panchayat shall hear appeals from all or any of the decrees, sentences, decisions, orders and directions made by such Panchayat. Now there is no doubt that the words 'decrees and sentences" appearing in this part of the sub-section refer to decrees in suits and sentences in cases coming before the Gram Panchayat judicially. But the remaining three words viz. "decisions, orders and directions" are again very general and can apply both to judicial and administrative work of the Panchayat. As a matter of fact, it seems to us that the words "decrees and sentences" have appeared in sub-section (6) as a matter of abundant precaution, for there is already a provision in sec. 57 (2) so far as appeal injudicial matter is concerned. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 57 lays down that any person aggrieved by a sentence, decree or order made by a Panchayat in a suit or case under this Act is entitled to appeal to the Tehsil Panchayat established under sec. 58. It seems to us that if sub-sec. (6) of sec. 58 only meant to apply to judicial work of the Gram Panchayat and the Tehsil Panchayat had only the power to hear appeals from the judicial work of the Gram Panchayat, this sub section was entirely unnecessary, for such provision had already been made in sec. 57 (2 ). Considering, therefore, the general nature of the first part of this sub-sec. and remembering that sec. 57 (2) already provides for appeals injudicial matters, there can, in our opinion, be no escape from the conclusion that this sub-section gives a general power of supervision to the Tehsil Panchayat over all the affairs of a Gram Panchayat within its jurisdiction and also confers on it powers of appeal from all orders, decisions and directions made by the Gram Panchayat even in its administrative capacity. Our attention in this connection was drawn to sec. 27 of the Act. Sec. 27 prescribes fines for disobedience of orders of the Panchayat. Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 27 prescribes for an appeal to the Tehsil Panchayat from any such fine. It is urged that if it was the intention of the legislature to provide for appeal to the Tehsil Panchayat from all orders in administrative cases, the provision would have been made in sec. 27 which is headed "power to fine in administrative cases," We have already pointed out that sec. 58 is a misfit in Chapter IV. It seems to us that at the stage where sec. 27 appears, the legislature was only dealing with the Gram Panchayats and provided for appeals from certain orders to the Tehsil Panchayats which were to be established. Sec. 27 did not deal with the general powers of the Tehsil Panchayat which were provided in sec. 58. It cannot be inferred from this that sub-sec. (6) of sec. 58 only refers to judicial powers of the Panchayat. It is true that the establishment of Tehsil Panchayats was in the contemplation of the legislature; but it is only under sec. 58 that the legislature dealt with the establishment and powers of the Tehsil Panchayats generally. Our attention in this connection was drawn to Misrimal vs. Gram Panchayat, Siwana (1 ). It is said that one may infer from what has been said in para 9 of that judgment that the Tehsil Panchayat had no power to hear appeals in administrative matters from Gram Panchayats. One of us was a party to that judgment and it is enough to say that in that Judgment secs. 24, 26 and 27 only were considered. Sec. 58 was not considered at all and there is no reference in that judgment to sec. 58 which deals with the establishment, constitution, jurisdiction and powers of the Tehsil Panchayat. It is true that in that case it was pointed out that one way in which a particular type of order passed by a Gram Panchayat could be taken before the Tehsil Panchayat was to disobey the order and invite a fine and then take the matter to the Tehsil Panchayat. But that case does not lay down and was not meant to lay down that there could be no appeal from an administrative order by a Gram Panchayat to the Tehsil Panchayat for sec. 58, which is the primary section, for that matter was not considered in that case at all. It has been urged that if the intention of the legislature was that sub-sec. (6) of sec, 58 would cover administrative matters also, a period of limitation would also have been prescribed. As no period of limitation is prescribed under sec. 58 as has been done under sec. 57 and 27, it is urged that sec. 58 (6) deals with nothing more than what is contained in sec. 57 (2 ). We are not impressed by this argument. It is true that generally period of limitation is prescribed for appeals, but it is not essential that such a period must be prescribed. It may be that the legislature left the period to be prescribed by rules to be framed under sec. 89 of the Act. Even if this period is not prescribed, it will not take away the right of appeal, if conferred, under sub-sec. (6 ). All that we need say is that it would be better if the period of limitation is prescribed for such appeals also as it is under sec. 57 (2) or sec. 27 (4 ). On a careful consideration, therefore, of the words of sub-sec. (6) of sec, 58 and the scheme of that section, we are of opinion that the appeals provided thereunder also cover administrative decision, orders and directions of a Gram Panchayat. We now come to the second point raised in these cases. The contention of the applicants is that the Tehsil Panchayat should not have ordered sale in favour of the opposite parties and should have ordered auction in case it interfered with the order of the Gram Panchayat. Reliance in this connection is placed on rule 37 A of the rules framed under sec. 89 of the Act. A perusal of those rules shows that auction is the ordinary method by which plots of land can be disposed of by a Gram Panchayat and, therefore, also by a Tehsil Panchayat. There are three exceptions to this ordinary method which are contained in sub-rules 17, 18 and 19 of rule 37-A. Sub-rule 17 provides for private sale where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price, or a Panchayat considers, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that an auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the land. Sub-rule (18) provides for private sale in special cases where a person is in possession for 40 years by himself or through his predecessors. Sub-rule (19) deals with cases of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes or other backward classes. In any case, if the Panchayat, whether it be Gram Panchayat or Tehsil Panchayat, wants to depart from the ordinary mode of auction, as provided by sub-rule 8, it has to bring the matter within sub-rules 17, 18 or 19. This must be made clear in the order by which private sale is allowed. It these cases the orders of the Tehsil Panchayat do not show that any of the conditions provided in sub-rules 17, 18 and 19 was present in the mind of the Panchayat and was considered by it when it decided to order private sale in favour of the opposite party. In the absence therefore, of any of the conditions provided in sub-rules 17, 18 and 19, the proper order for the Tehsil Panchayat to pass was, when it was interfering with the order of the Gram Panchayat, to order auction of the property as required by sub-rule (8 ). We are, therefore, of opinion that this course should now be followed. This is the proper course, particularly in cases where there are rival claimants to the same plot of land. This means that the order of the Gram Panchayat also by which plot No. 274 was sold to Surjaram and plot No. 248 or Devilal cannot be allowed to stand. We, therefore, partly, allow these applications and set aside the sales of plot No. 274 to Sukhram and plot No. 248 to Hazura Singh. We further order that the two plots will be auctioned as provided in sub-rule (8) of rule 37-A, unless the Gram Panchayat is of opinion by order in writing that any of the conditions of sub rules 17, 18 and 19 apply. In view of the circumstances, we order parties to bear their own costs of this court in both cases. .;