JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are residents of village Tatarsar in District Sri Ganganagar. They are aggrieved by the sale of a land situated in the middle of the village bearing plot No. 180 in favour of respondent no. 4 Kashi Ram and respondent no. 5 Laduram for a sum of Rs. 100/- only. There is no reply filed by any of the respondents, to the petition. Accordingly, the averments made on the affidavit in the petition relating to facts have to be accepted being unscontroverted. According to the petitioners this land was in public use for atleast a century being the common meeting place of the villagers. It has been alleged that the land was sold by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 who are his relatives, no auction was held for the sale of the land and the prescribed procedure was not followed. There are other averments to allege fabrication of the relevant records, but is not necessary for deciding this petition to consider them at length. The sale in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 of this land for Rs. 100/- was made on January 10, 1974 vide document Ex. 2 recorded by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter a complaint was made against this act to the Collector who sent the matter for enquiry to the Sarpanch himself against whom the allegation was made. Thereafter the Additional Collector by order dated March 1, 1979 dismissed the complaint. This had led to the filing of this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the petition and contended that the alternative remedy of appeal against the Collector's order has not been exhausted, , and that the Collector's order shows that the prescribed procedure had been followed and there was no illegality in the same. 3. Having heard both the sides we are satisfied that this petition must be allowed. The uncontroverted facts are that the sale by the Gram Panchayat was in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 who are relatives of the Sarpanch that the land was in public use for a long time and is situate in the middle of the village, and that the sale to respondents no. 4 and 5 was surreptitious and not by public auction in the manner prescribed. In our opinion, these facts alone are sufficient to set aside this sale. 4 and 5 was surreptitious and not by public auction in the manner prescribed. In our opinion, these facts alone are sufficient to set aside this sale. 4. Rules 255 to 265 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 prescribed an elaborate procedure for the sale of abadi land which require filing an application for purchase, publication of notice, disposal of objections and then public auction of the land at which every intending purchaser gets equal opportunity for making the purchase. In view of the uncontroverted averments in the petition it must be accepted that no auction atleast as required by these Rules was held by the Gram Panchayat. That apart equal opportunity to all intending purchasers to purchase any public property is also the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the distribution of the State largess cannot be made arbitrarily by any public functionary, the sale of this land to respondents no. 4 and 5 is, therefore, clearly invalid. This being so and the petition having been admitted for hearing in the year 1979 there is no occasion to decline interference even in such a situation on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. As already indicated there is a clear violation not only of the Rules but also of Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Consequently the petition is allowed. The impugned sale dated January 10, 1974 of the above land in favour of respondent no. 4 Kashi Ram and respondent no. 5 Ladu Ram as well as the orders of the Panchayat and other authorities confirming that sale are quashed. No costs.Writ allowed and Sale quashed. *******