SHETHNA, J. - (1.) SHORT but important question of law arising in this petition is,` can panchayat sell (lkoztfud fcykuke jklrs dh Hkwfe) public land, if the land is not Abadi Land and not belonging to Panchayat ?' The answer would be `no. No one including the panchayat has any right or authority to sell the public land to anyone. The right Vested only in State Government.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Gram Panchayat awarded patta in favour of the petitioner on 23. 1. 84 in a so called auction. The order - sheet dated 23. 1. 84 which is produced at running page 34 of this petition. in the order of District Collector, Rajsamand (Annex,8) facts speaks for itself. Except the petitioner,no one else offered any bid in the auction. therefore, patta of the land was given to the petitioner at a throwaway price by the panchayat which never belong to it. One Sohan Lal aggrieved by the patta granted in favour of the petitioner by respondent panchayat, filed revision No. 9/97 before District Collector, Rajsamand for cancelling the same on the ground that the land never belong to panchayat and it was a public land, therefore, the panchayat had no right to sell the land and execute the patta in favour of the petitioner. The objection regarding delay in filing the same is raised by the present petitioner before the Disti. Collector. Considering the provisions of Panchayat Act and Panchayat Rules the learned collector was of the opinion that she can revise the order passed by the panchayat in view of Sec. 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and panchayat General Rules, 1961. Learned Collector fo- und that it was a public land, therefore, by her impugned order at Annex. 8 she cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved of that order, the petitioner has filed this petition. After filing of this petition, by way of additional affidavit the petitioner tried to produce the map on the record of the case by way of amendment. However, permission was not granted in view of the fact that the said document was never produced before the learned Collector and it cannot be allowed to be produced for the first time before this court in a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel Shri Sajjan Singh for petitioner vehemently submitted that it would be travesty of justice in cancelling the patta of the petitioner after 14 years, because, after the patta was granted he had also put up construction over the said land. He submitted that there is a gross delay of 14 years, therefore, this court should interfere with the impugned order at Annex. 8 passed by the Collector. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon my own judgment in case of Sua Lal and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1 ). I failed to understand how that judgment has any application to the facts of the present case. In Sua Lal's case (supra) the facts were reproduced by me in para 4 of the judgment. Sua Lal was pursuing the case against the respondent in whose favour the plots were allotted by the sarpanch of the panchayat 32 years back. It had also come on the record that before coming to this court, Sua Lal had also filed suit against the respondent in civil court and then before appellate court. Failing every where, he approached Addl. Collector for cancelling of patta after 32 years. The Addl. Collec- tor also refused to interfere with the same, therefore, refusal on the part of the Addl. Collector was challenged by Sua Lal before this court. Under the circumstances, the delay of 32 years was considered. The facts of the case on hand are totally different. At the cost of repetition I may state that the panchayat had no business to sell the public land to anyone in- cluding the petitioner when it never belongs to it (panchayat ). The submission was that Sohan Lal present respondent No. 3 had filed revision petition after 14 years before the Distt. Collector only because he wanted to hide the encroachment made by him. This has also no substance. In fact the petitioner himself has produced order dt. 20. 2. 98 (Annex. 4) passed against Sohan Lal, Bholi Ram by the Nayab Tehsildar, Sardargarh declaring him as trespasser and ordering them to remove the encroachment by imposing penalty. It is true that said Sohan Lal was dispossessed from the land but he can certainly bring to the notice of the Collector about the illegal transaction entered into between the panchayat and the petitioner in selling the public land and executing patta for the land which never belong to panchayat. In view of the above discussion, I do not see any substance and merit in this case, accordingly, it fails and is dismissed. . ;