JUDGMENT 1. 1. On September 6, 1986 non-petitioner No. 2. Dev Lal, lodged a report at the police station. Piplu alleging that his cattle including four she-buffaloes which had gone for grazing have not returned and are missing for last two months. He made a search of them but they could not be traced out. It is pertinent to mention that earlier to this also it was taken down in Rojnamcha on August 31, 1986 that one Gujar of Thikariya had reported to the polite station that some of his cattle including she-buffaloes are in cattle-pond of village Kanbada. On the basis of this report the police had registered a case under S. 379 IPC and it started investigation. During the course of investigation the police recovered the she buffaloes from the possession of the petitioners who had purchased the cattle in public auction which was conducted by Gram Panchayat, Kanbada in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya-Panchayat General Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules"). Dev Lal, non-petitioner No. 2, filed an application on September 11. 1986 and the learned trial court after giving notice to the petitioners directed the delivery of the cattle to be given to Dev Lal. The petitioners have, therefore, moved an application submitting that Dev Lal, non-petitioner No. 2, was in no manner concerned with the cattle as the petitioner had purchased the cattle from Gram Panchayat, Kanbada in an open auction. They had deposited the amount in Gram Panchayat and filed the same in the court. It was submitted that t ere are statutory Rules under which the Panchayat acts and entire procedure was followed. Notice of this application was given to Dev Lal and after hearing both the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioners. It is against this order that the petitioners have approached this court. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the trial court is patently erroneous inasmuch as the learned Magistrate did not address himself on the legal position of the matter. He had gone into the ownership for considering that he had limited jurisdiction at the time he was delivering the property. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the trial court is patently erroneous inasmuch as the learned Magistrate did not address himself on the legal position of the matter. He had gone into the ownership for considering that he had limited jurisdiction at the time he was delivering the property. Besides this, he has not taken into consideration that ownership of the property was that of the petitioners who were the bona fide purchasers for value from Gram Panchayat, Kanbada who had put the cattle for auction in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the cattle are alleged to have been missing since before two months of lodging the F.I.R. and during this period, it is submitted that as early as 7.7.86 the auction had taken place and on 12.8.86 the Panchayat confirmed the sale in its meeting (illegible) in 19 days thereafter that a report about the missing of cattle was lodged. It is submitted that before putting the cattle to auction procedure laid down under Rule 186 to 209 of the Rules was followed in letter and spirit. Thus it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate he set aside and the cattle should be ordered to be delivered to the petitioners. Learned counsel for non-petitioners submits that he being an owner of property, is best entitled to the possession thereof and, therefore, no interference should be made. Since I had given notice to the Gram Panchayat also Shri J. P. Goyal appearing on behalf of Gram Panchayat, supported its own action. It was submitted that it is essential for the Panchayat to put the stray cattle into cattle-pond which can be taken away from there within stipulated period after paying the expenses and it is a time-bound programme. Under the statute Panchayat cannot keep the cattle indefinite hence it had to put to auction and the auction proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Rules. It is, therefore, submitted that non-petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to the custody of the cattle. 3. I enquired from the learned counsel about the fate of the F.I.R which was lodged by non-petitioner No. 2. It is, therefore, submitted that non-petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to the custody of the cattle. 3. I enquired from the learned counsel about the fate of the F.I.R which was lodged by non-petitioner No. 2. I was informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he placed before me the certified copy also that a final report No. 4/87 had been filed after investigating F. I. R. No. 85,86 and the same final report had been accepted by the learned Magistrate on 28.10.87. The entire case has very peculiar features. On one hand Dev Lal claims to be the bonafide owner of the cattle but his slackness indicates a little otherwise. He neither bothered to come to the cattlepond nor he went to the police for informing about missing of the cattle prior to the auction. The cattle had been seized in accordance with ruses and were taken to the cattlepond which is maintained by the Panchayat as contemplated by the Act and cattle has to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in Chapter IX of the Rules. Nothing has been shown that these rules have not been followed rather Mr. Goyal has shown to the court the entire file of the Panchayat which has been maintained in accordance with these rules and which shows that the same has been followed in letter and spirit. It was rather more than a week that the cattle were kept prior to putting them to auction and then the petitioners were the highest bidders to whom the cattle were ordered to be given as hammer had fallen in their favour. Thus when the Panchayat auction had become a public auction and a right vested in the person who purchased the same in the aforesaid auction the petitioners became bona fide purchasers of the value and till the sale was set aside they are the owners of the property. Non-petitioner No.2 cannot claim the ownership of the cattle without getting the safe set aside which he can do so in any court of competent jurisdiction. Non-petitioner No.2 cannot claim the ownership of the cattle without getting the safe set aside which he can do so in any court of competent jurisdiction. In the alternative when such public auction is done after following entire procedure as laid down in the rules anybody claiming the cattle can only go to the panchayat and move an application in accordance with law after depositing the fine and the expenses and it is for the panchayat to decide the matter and restore the property to him after paying back the auction price to the auction purchaser. This is an exceptional provision kept by the legislature itself whereby non-petitioner No. 2 could, at best, claim the possession of the property. He cannot defraud the panchayat on one side and obtain possession from another. When the stray cattle is taken to the cattlepond they are released after imposition of fine and submission of the expenses incurred by the panchayat according to the schedules fixed. Panchayat recovers this amount by auction and the owner can only claim the property even from the panchayat after payment of fine as well as the expenses incurred. Non-petitioner No. 2 in the instant case has double-crossed everybody had he gone to civil court in a suit for possession of the property he would have been compelled to file the court-fee. Had he gone to panchayat he would have been asked to first pay fine and expenses incurred by the gram panchayat but he has found out a very fine device of coming to the criminal court and obtain the delivery thereby saving the court-fee as well as the expenses and the fine. Such sort of the circumvention cannot be permitted through process of law and such a camouflaging cannot come to his assistance through the agency of the court. In any eventuality the court even if was delivering the property ought to have ensured first the payment of expenses incurred by the panchayat before giving the delivery of the cattle to non-petitioner No.2. In my opinion non-petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to property as he could not also prove his ownership so far. Mere filing of F. I. R. after some property is auctioned and that too after more than two months cannot be considered ex facie as a ground for holding the owner- ship of the non-petitioner. In my opinion non-petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to property as he could not also prove his ownership so far. Mere filing of F. I. R. after some property is auctioned and that too after more than two months cannot be considered ex facie as a ground for holding the owner- ship of the non-petitioner. If ex facie this is acceptable preposition then it is likely to be abused by sharp litigants and mischievous persons who having known that particular cattle has been auctioned would go and lodge a report that they belong to him. Neither any enquiry has been conducted nor any proof has been furnished by him to show the ownership.As against that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers for value through gram panchayat as such they have been better claimants as against non-petitioner No. 2. the order, therefore, is bad. There is yet another circumstance for returning the property to the petitioners and that is that even in F. I. R. filed by Dev Lal non-petitioner No. 2. police has submitted a final report and the same has been accepted by the court on 28.10.87. Thus tinder the normal law also since the non-petitioners have failed to establish his case property has to be returned to the person from whom it has been recovered. 4. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk dated 3.9.1987 is set aside. He is directed to make arrangements for restoration of the property to the petitioner forthwith.Application allowed. *******