JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Hari Singh has filed this writ petition paying for issue of a writ, direction or order to quash the order of the Addl. Collector, Jodhpur dated 8-11-1985 by which the learned Addl. Collector has set aside the 'patta' granted to the petitioner and has directed an enquiry by the Gram Panchayat whether or not to grant the 'patta' of the disputed land to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated here. The petitioner Hari Singh is a resident of Barli Tehsil Jodhpur. He had applied for grant of 'patta' in respect of a piece of land marked red in the site plan (Anx. 1) filed along with the writ petition. This piece of land is situated adjacent to the house of non-petitioner Jograj Singh and is opposite to the petitioner's own house which is across the road on the other side. The petitioner claimed possession over this land since the time of his ancestors and prayed for the grant of 'patta' in order to regularise his own possession and to perfect the title. It is alleged that after following the procedure laid down under rules 255 to 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Rules, 1961 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules'). The Panchayat granted the 'patta' in favour of the petitioner. The copy of that 'patta' is Anx. 2 and is dated 28-9-1964. No-petitioner No. 3 Jograj Singh is alleged to have opened a new door shown at "Y" in Anx. 1 over looking the petitioner's aforesaid 'patta sud' land and thereby threatened the petitioner and his son to disturb their possession over this piece of land, whereupon Narainsingh son of the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against non -petitioner No. 3 in the court of the Munsif, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur for an injunction against non-petitioner No. 3 restraining him from dis-possession of the petitioner from the aforesaid land & not to obstruct him in raising construction thereon. An application for temporary injunction was also filed in that suit and after hearing both the parties the learned Munsif granted a temporary injunction as prayed for by Narain Singh against non-petitioner no. 3 Jograj Singh on 17-7-1985. Jograj Singh filed an appeal against this order which is said to be still pending before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jodhpur. 3. 3 Jograj Singh on 17-7-1985. Jograj Singh filed an appeal against this order which is said to be still pending before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jodhpur. 3. The case of the petitioner further is that having failed before the learned Munsif, Jograjsingh. non-petitioner No. 3 moved an application under Section 27(A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act') before the learned Addl. Collector, Jodhpur for the revision of the order of the Panchayat granting the 'patta' to the petitioner and praying that the said 'patta' may be set aside. The petitioner further alleges that the present Sarpanch was a man of the party to which non-petitioner No 3 belongs and, therefore, he supported the application under Section 27(A) of the Act filed by Jograjsingh and ultimately the learned Addl. Collector after hearing the parties accepted the revision petition filed by non-petitioner No. 3 Jograjsingh and set aside the order of the Gram Panchayat dated 28-9-1964 granting 'patta' to the petitioner and remanded the case to the Gram Panchayat for afresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. A copy of the said order of the learned Addl. Collector dated 8-11-1985 has been filed along with the writ petitition and is marked Anx. 9 It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner by this writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the learned Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction under Section 27(A) of the Act to revise the order of the Gram Panchayat granting 'patta' to the petitioner as the said order of the Panchayat was appealable under Section 26(A) of the Act and a revision was barred, that the learned Addl. Collector did not apply his mind to the material on record before him, that as a matter of fact there is no material on record in order to support the conclusion of the learned Addl. Collector that the sale was bad and that the findings of the learned Addl. Collector are against the record in as much as he has observed that the rules 255 to 266 have not been followed, where as in an earlier part of the order he has found that the rules had been complied with. The learned Counsel for non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have supported the order of the learned Addl. Collector are against the record in as much as he has observed that the rules 255 to 266 have not been followed, where as in an earlier part of the order he has found that the rules had been complied with. The learned Counsel for non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have supported the order of the learned Addl. Collector and have urged that there is no error apparent on the face of the order of the learned Addl Collector and, therefore, this Court could not interfere with the same and that in such circumstances a writ of certiorari cannot be issued. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the record. I shall deal with these contentions one by one. 6. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Panchayat under Section 27(A) of the Act, in as much as the order of the Gram Panchayat was appealable under Section 26(A) of the Act and there is a complete bar against the exercise of revisional powers under Section 27(A) as is envisaged by Clause (c) of Section 27(A) of the Act. This question has already come up for consideration before this Court on earlier occasions and there are authorities holding that an order of the Gram Panchayat disposing of land under rules 255 to 266 of the Rules is revisable. In this connection reference may be made to Jagmal Singh v. Collector, Ganganagar, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 531 of 1972 decided on 3-1-1974 and Padma Ram v. The Revenue Appellate Authority and Ors. 1978 WLN (UC) 265 . It has clearly been held in this case that the order of sale by the Panchayat is not an order passed under any of the powers of the Panchayat contained in Chapter III and, therefore, such an order is not appealable under Section 26(A) of the Act. Consequently it is revisable under Section 27(A) of the Act and Clause (c) of that section does not bar such a revision It has also been pointed out that the sale of land by the Panchayat is in pursuance of the Rules made under Section 88(vi) which falls under Chapter VII and not under the powers contained in chapter III. Consequently it is revisable under Section 27(A) of the Act and Clause (c) of that section does not bar such a revision It has also been pointed out that the sale of land by the Panchayat is in pursuance of the Rules made under Section 88(vi) which falls under Chapter VII and not under the powers contained in chapter III. In Padma Ram's case (supra), the learned Single Judge has further made it clear that Rule 272 of the Rules envisages such a revision under Section 27(A) of the Act. After discussing the relevant provisions and relying on Jagmal Singh's case (supra) that "the result is that all orders of the Panchayat Samiti in administrative matters and all orders of the Panchayat in administrative matter which have not been passed under Chapter III are subject to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 27(A). I am in respectful agreement with this view and, therefore, reject the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Addl Collector had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Section 27(A) of the Act against the order of the Panchayat selling land to the petitioner. 7. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Addl. Collector did not apply his mind to the material on record and has improperly held that the rules 255 to 266 of the Rules have not been complied with, where as the proceedings of the Panchayat clearly go to show that all these rules have been complied with and in the earlier part of the order the learned Addl. Collector had himself observed that the procedure had been followed. He further urged that in any case when the proceedings of the Panchayat record the fact that the rules had been complied with, it should be presumed that they had been so complied with unless there is some material to point out the contrary. He placed reliance upon Prabhata v. Addl. Collector, Jaipur (1964 RLW 41) . I do not find force in this contention also. He placed reliance upon Prabhata v. Addl. Collector, Jaipur (1964 RLW 41) . I do not find force in this contention also. It, of cource, appears that in the proceedings the Panchayat had referred to the various provisions of rules 255 to 266 and have purported to have acted accordingly but a careful perusal of these proceedings would go to show that as a matter of fact the requirements of these rules had not been properly met with, it may also be mentioned here that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had in this connection further urged that even if there was some lacuna in the proceedings the sale could not have been set aside by the learned Addl Collector on that account where there had been substantial compliance of the procedure laid down in the Rules, however, to my mind the sale in favour of the petitioner suffered from an inherent defect and it cannot be said that there had been substantial compliance with the Rules Rule 266 of the Rules empowers the Panchayat to transfer Abadi land by private negotiation under the condition and in the manner which has been provided under that rule. That rule reads as under: 266(1) The Panchayat may transfer any Abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation in the following cases: (a) Where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price; (b)....... (c) ....... We are only concerned with Clause (a). The other two clauses are not applicable to the present case, in as much as the Panchayat purports to have sold the land by private negotiation on the basis of plausible claim. 8. In order to attract the provisions of Clause (a) of Rule 266 of the Rules, there are two pre-requisites, the first is that the person asking far the sale must have a plausible claim and the second that apart from that claim it should also appear that the auction may not fetch reasonable price. 8. In order to attract the provisions of Clause (a) of Rule 266 of the Rules, there are two pre-requisites, the first is that the person asking far the sale must have a plausible claim and the second that apart from that claim it should also appear that the auction may not fetch reasonable price. When the rule talks of plausible claim it must be taken that the Panchayat must have some material before it to show that the person asking for the 'patta' of the land has some semblance of title over that land, although he may not be able to establish his clear title and so far as the second condition goes it should also appear from the proceedings of the Panchayat that the Panchayat was satisfied that auction of the land in dispute may not fetch reasonable price. In the present case what the Panchayat has recorded is " izLrkfor Hkwfe ij izkFkhZ dk iqLrSuh ls dCtk gS vr% Hkwfe dks uhyke djuk laHko ugha gSA " There is absolutely no material on record to support the observations of the Panchayat about the ancestral possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. No document to that effect appears to have been produced before the Panchayat nor any oral evidence appears to have been led in this connection. The basis of this finding of the Panchayat as is disclosed from the order itself is the fact that despite issue of notice no person had filed any objections to the proposed sale and, therefore, the Panchayat jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner's ancestral possession over the land in dispute was established. Such a presumption could not have been drawn merely because no objection had been filed. There must have been some positive material before the Panchayat either in the form of any document or at least by oral evidence to support the said ancestral or old possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. It is true that two panchs had been deputed by the Panchayat to inspect the site but that could not have spoken for itself so far as the ancestral possession was concerned and, therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that there was absolutely no material before the Panchayat to hold that there was a plausible title of the petitioner over the land in dispute. 9. 9. Similarly the bald statement that auction was not possible, does not amount to saying that the Panchayat was satisfied that auction may not fetch reasonable price. Therefore, the second condition for the sale by private negotiation under Rule 266 was also not fulfilled. The Panchayat could have transferred the land by private negotiation under Rule 266(1) (a) of the Rules, only if both the conditions as stated above are fulfilled and when neither of the two were thus fulfilled the sale by the Panchayat was certainly in contravention of Rule 266(1)(a) and, therefore, the learned Addl. Collector was within his jurisdiction to exercise his powers under Section 27(A) and to set aside such a sale. In these circumstances the second contention of the learned Counsel must also fail and it cannot be held that the learned Addl. Collector did not apply his mind to the material on record. 10. The 3rd and 4th contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner can be taken up together and in view of my finding on the second contention these two contentions must also fail. When non-compliance of Rule 266(1)(a) was thus clear, it cannot be said that there was no material on record before the learned Addl. Collector to satisfy him that the proceedings were correct, legal and proper and equally it cannot be said that the finding of the learned Addl. Collector was against the record. 11. The procedure for transfer of Abadi land by private negotiation had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Girt Raj and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1986 (1) WLN 707 and in that case an earlier decision of this court reported in Hari Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1977 WLN (UC) 167 was relied upon and it was observed" .....the Collector has a power to call for the record for the purpose of satisfying himself about the legality, propriety and the correctness of the order passed by the Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti. He has a power to rescind, modify or set aside any of the order passed by the authorities concerned in exercise of their administrative powers. He has a power to rescind, modify or set aside any of the order passed by the authorities concerned in exercise of their administrative powers. In the instant case, we do not find whether there was any justification for sale under Rule 266 and whether the Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti had any reason for adopting the mode of sale by applying the provisions of Rule 226. Ordinarily the land should be sold by way of auction unless there are special reasons for not doing so. If the land is allowed to be sold by way of negotiations without assigning any reasons then the citizen will have a right to challenge the sale on the ground that the equal opportunity has not been provided in his favour. We would like to observe that unless there are extra ordinary circumstances the provisions of Rule 266 should not be made applicable and the sale should be by way of auction as provided under other rule." The observations are clearly applicable to the present case. As already stated above, the sale has been made without showing a plausible claim of title in favour of the petitioner and also without recording a clear finding that auction would not fetch a reasonable price. In these circumstances the learned Addl. Collector was perfectly justified in setting aside this sale. The learned Addl. Collector has also directed that the Panchayat shall make a fresh enquiry in accordance with the Rules and shall afford an opportunity of hearing to both the sides before it takes any decision to dispose of the land in the manner provided under Rule 226 of the Rules. Thus the petitioner will have an opportunity to establish his plausible title and also to show that auction may not fetch a reasonable price. Looking to all these circumstances I am clearly of the opinion that no interference is called for with the order of the learned Addl. Collector. 12. The writ petition is without any substance and is hereby dismissed. However, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I shall make no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******