SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THESE five petitioners are father and sons. The petitioner no. 3, Hazur Singh is father and rest of the petitioners are his sons. In the cause title of this petition common address is given by the petitioners. They claim that they are Scheduled Caste persons, therefore, no sanction was necessary at the time of allotment of plots.
(2.) THIS is yet another petition full of fraud and collusion between the petitioners and the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who in a most arbitrary manner almost gifted away valuable plots of his Gram Panchayat to the petitioners at a throw away prices of Rs. 515/- ,rs. 520/- Rs. 380/-, Rs. 535/- and Rs. 500/- respectively to the petitioners who are members of one family, without following the due procedure of auction. The petitioners got the possession of the land in 1987 and though there was stay against them issued by the Panchayat Samiti they continued with the construction and completed the same. It is submitted on the basis of the Single Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Mastana Ram and 12 others vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1), that they have spent huge amount on improvement and development of their plots, therefore, sale executed in 1987 cannot be cancelled after 11 years by this Court. It is true that in Mastana Ram's case (supra) there was a delay of six years on the part of the Collector to cancel the sanction on the ground that sanction was not signed by the Secretary but by Assistant Secretary. It is also true that this Court took the view that huge amount was spent on improvement and development of land, therefore, cancellation order cannot be upheld. But, in my opinion, the facts of that case were totally different than that of this case. In this case, one Modu Ram, respondent no. 5 appealed against such sale before the Panchayat Samiti, much earlier. All the petitioners were duly served with the notices, but they refused to accept the same and now the grievance is made that without hearing them the Panchayat Samiti passed the resolution dated 26. 9. 1990 (Annex. 6 ). From the order of Collector dated 30. 9. 93 (Annex. 7) passed in revision petition filed by three petitioners. Sunder Singh, Surjeet Singh and Teja Singh present petitioners no. 1, 2 and 5 respectively, it is clear that they refused to accept the notice, therefore, Panchayat Samiti after adjourning the matter on three occasions i. e. on 5. 6. 90, 16. 7. 1990 and 28. 9. 90 decided the matter against the petitioners. It also appears from the order of Collector that revision filed in 1989 was dismissed by the Collector on 5. 4. 990. That order is not placed on record. But, it appears from the order of Collector that in revision filed by Hazur Singh also it was found that he was duly served with notice. Not only that it was also found from the record of Panchayat that the procedure of committee of Panchas, issuing notice for auction and inviting objection to it and the entire procedure of auction was not followed in accordance with law, rules and regulations. Not only that no sanction was obtained from the competent authority even after the auction. The worst part of it is that the Panchayat made the allotment to the members of one family and not to anyone else. As stated earlier, in Mastana Ram's case (supra) sanction was cancelled by the Collector on a technical ground that sanction was signed by Assis- tant Secretary and not by the Secretary. In this case, the revision petition of the main petitioner Hazur Singh, father of remaining four petitioners filed in 1989 wad dismissed in 1990. Thus, in this case there was not much delay. It may also be stated that in spite of the stay order issued by the Panchayat Samiti they continued with the construction, therefore, now it is not open to them to say that they have spent huge amount for improvement and development of the land. If, they have made construction, it was made at their risk, but it can never be used as a circumstance in their favour. Considering the impugned order passed by the Panchayat Samiti and the Collector dismissing the revision petition, it cannot be said that they have committed any error much less error on law or jurisdictional error, which requires to be corrected by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It may be stated that this petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but strictly speaking this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the scope of which is very narrow and limited as held by the Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim One more contention was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding appeal filed by Modu Ram being time barred. The Apex Court in case of Collector Land Acquistion Pnating vs. Mst. Ketji (3) held that the matter should be decided o n merits and should not be thrown out on the technical grounds like limitation, etc. Hence, this submission is rejected. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners claim that no sanction was necessary for them because they belong to Scheduled Caste. But, in fact, they were not Scheduled Caste as they were Jat Sikh. Thus, such petitioners who do not come before the Court with clean hands are not entitled for any relief in their favour.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1000/- to each of the petitioners. They shall deposit the same within two months from today before the Registrar General of this Court failing which appropriate action will be initiated against them. If the amount is deposited the same shall be utilised for Legal Aid purpose. .;