SHARMA, J.- This is a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by Sriram, for issue of a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature thereof, quashing the order of the Additional Collector, Sikar, dated 25th Sept., 78, cancelling the sale deed, which had been executed in favour of the petitioner by Gram Panchayat Reengus, on 3rd Nov.,74. 2. The petitioner is a resident of Reengus Town, in District Sikar. On 30th Aug., 74, the petitioner made an application to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Reengus, stating that there was a piece of land adjoining the north of his Nohra and in-front of his house, after leaving the public way. It was stated that the land was in his possession, and a patta at a concessional rate, be granted in his favour in respect of the said land. On 26th Oct., 74, Geedaram and Govindram, Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, made a site-inspection and measured the plot of land, for which, the petitioner had made the application for grant of a patta. It was found that the measurement of the plot of land was 20 east-west x 18 north-south, and that the land was in possession of the petitioner. The Panchas reported that even after grant of Patta in respect of the said land, there would be no obstruction in the alignment of the houses.The report of the Panchas is Annexure -3. The Gram Panchayat issued a notice (Annex. 4) on 30th Aug., 74, inviting objections against the application of the petitioner for grant of Patta. The matter was decided by the Gram Panchayat by its order dated 3rd Nov., 74, whereby, the above plot of land was agreed to be sold to the petitioner under Rule 266 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyay Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, at a concessional rate of Rs. 21-per sq. yd. A sale-deed (Annex.6) was also executed by the Gram Panchayat in respect of this land, on 3rd Nov., 74, in favour of the petitioner. It appears that respondents Nos. 4 & 5, by a sale deed dated 5th Jan., 77, which was registered on 12th Jan., 77, purchased a vacant land, located on the eastern side of a part of the plot of land which had been sold by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner. It appears that respondents Nos. 4 & 5, by a sale deed dated 5th Jan., 77, which was registered on 12th Jan., 77, purchased a vacant land, located on the eastern side of a part of the plot of land which had been sold by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner. The case of the respondents Nos. 4 & 5 was that the plot of land sold to the petitioner was a public chowk and public way since long, and that the Gram Panchayat could not have sold the said land of the public-way to the petitioner. It was also the case of respondents Nos. 4 & 5 that the Patta had been issued in favour of the petitioner in violation of the rules. 3. It may here be mentioned that the petitioner had also another piece of land measuring 630 sq. yds and 2 sq. feet, in respect of which a Patta had been granted in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat on 16th Nov., 69. 4. Aggrieved by the two Pattas granted by the Gram Panchayat Reengus, in favour of the petitioner, on 16th Nov., 69 and on 3rd Nov., 74, respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition before the Additional Collector, Sikar. In respect of the Pattas granted by the Gram Panchayat, it was mentioned in the revision petition that it formed part of the public way, and hence, that land could not have been sold. It was also stated that since the plot of land was in front of the house which had been purchased by respondents Nos. 4 & 5, obstruction would be caused in their access to the public way. Violation of the rules was also complained of. The Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat had not recorded any reasons, as contemplated by Rule 266(1) (a) & (b) of the 1961 Rules. He also held that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of Patta. As there existed neither his house near this plot of land, nor was there any reliable evidence about his possession over this land. He also held that by the allotment of the land to the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat had violated the easementary rights of respondents Nos. 4 & 5 . The whole proceedings had taken place under secrecy. Nauranglal respondent No. 4 was not given any opportunity of being heard. He also held that by the allotment of the land to the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat had violated the easementary rights of respondents Nos. 4 & 5 . The whole proceedings had taken place under secrecy. Nauranglal respondent No. 4 was not given any opportunity of being heard. The Additional Collector, Sikar, therefore, accepted the revision petition filed by Nauranglal, and he set aside the order of the Gram Panchayat dated 3rd Nov., 74, whereby, the plot of land measuring 42 sq. yds. was sold to the petitioner under the patta dated 3rd Nov., 74. However, the grant of Patta in respect of the land which had been made by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner on 16th Nov., 69, was maintained. 5. The petitioner in this writ petition, has challenged the order of the Additional Collector, Sikar, dated 25th Sept. 78, as illegal and without jurisdiction. It is stated by the petitioner that the revision petition filed by respondent No. 4 before the Additional Collector, Sikar, was incompetent as the latter had no jurisdiction to entertain any such revision under Rule 272 of the Panchayat Rules. It is further stated that respondents Nos. 4 & 5 were not aggrieved parties against the aforesaid sale of the piece of land measuring 42 sq. yds. in favour of the petitioner. The respondents had not filed any objections when the same were invited by the Gram Panchayat. They also did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Gram Panchayat, as provided in Rule 270 of the Panchayat Rules. When the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner for the land measuring 42 sq. yds, respondents Nos. 4 & 5 did not have any house or land situated near the plot in question. They had purchased the Nohra from Brij Mohan Pareek in the year 1977, and the Gram Panchayat had sold the plot of land to the petitioner on 26th Nov., 74. The petitioner further states that direct revision without preferring an appeal and that too after expiry of three years, should not have been entertained by the Additional Collector, Sikar, and that the same was barred by limitation. 6. To continue the narration further, it may be mentioned that since the Additional Collector, Sikar, had not disturbed the Patta granted to the petitioner in respect of another plot of land measuring 630 sq. yds. & 2 sq. 6. To continue the narration further, it may be mentioned that since the Additional Collector, Sikar, had not disturbed the Patta granted to the petitioner in respect of another plot of land measuring 630 sq. yds. & 2 sq. feet on 16th Nov., 69, respondents Nos. 4 & 5 had, on 12th Oct., 83, filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2212/83, in this Court. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, Sikar, dated 25th Sept., 78, so far as it related to the patta granted on 16th Nov., 69, respondents Nos. 4 & 5 had filed a revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. In that revision petition, the present petitioner had raised a preliminary objection that the Additional Collector had passed order under the delegated powers from the State Government, and therefore, no revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Authority was maintainable. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, on 13th Sept., 82, rejected the revision petition of respondents Nos. 4 & 5 holding that the revision petition was not maintainable, because, the Additional Collector had passed the order in pursuance of the delegated powers. Respondents Nos. 4 & 5, in the above writ petition, challenged the orders of Gram Panchayat Reengus; Additional Collector, Sikar; and Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, on various grounds. That writ petition was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on 5th Dec, 83. The learned Single Judge did not go into the question as to whether the revision petition filed by respondents Nos. 4 & 5, before the Revenue Appellate Authority was maintainable or not. He examined the merits of the case and held that the Gram Panchayat had granted Patta for 630 sq. yds & 2 sq. feet, by order dated 16th Nov., 69, after making full inquiry, and after coming to the conclusion on the basis of the statements recorded that the present petitioner was in possession of that land. The learned Single Judge also said in his order that there was no justification in raising the objection for the first time in 1977. So far as the grant of patta regarding 42 sq. yds. of land was concerned, he held that the Additional Collector himself had set aside the order of the Gram Panchayat dated 3rd Nov., 74. The writ petition filed by respondents Nos. 4 & 5 was accordingly dismissed. 7. So far as the grant of patta regarding 42 sq. yds. of land was concerned, he held that the Additional Collector himself had set aside the order of the Gram Panchayat dated 3rd Nov., 74. The writ petition filed by respondents Nos. 4 & 5 was accordingly dismissed. 7. It may further be stated that respondent No. 4 had also instituted a civil suit for a permanent and mandatory injunction, in the court of Munsif, Sawaimadhopur. A copy of the plaint of that suit has been filed by the petitioner, and the same is marked Annexure-8. In that suit, respondent No, 4 had complained that 3-4 years before the filing of the suit, the present petitioner had constructed a latrine near the land, purchased by respondent No. 4, on the land of public-chowk and public-way and that had been dismantled by the Municipal Board in July, 75. Respondent No. 4 apprehended that the present petitioner might make construction over this land of public-chowk and public-way, and he, therefore, prayed for a permanent and mandatory injunction, and for the demolition of the Chabutra, which had been constructed by the present petitioner on the land of the public- chowk & public-way. That civil suit instituted by respondent No.4, bearing No. 341/77 was dismissed in default on 8th Mar., 89, and a certified copy of that order has been produced on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Certain facts are quite clear in the case, and they are also not in dispute and are otherwise well established. Annexure-1 has been filed as a site-plan, showing the location of the petitioners house, the disputed latrine and the disputed plot of land measuring 21 east-west x 18 north-south. The disputed piece of land is located opposite the house of the petitioner after a vacant land showing the public-way. Adjoining this disputed land, on its immediate west, there was a Nohara of Brij Mohan Pareek. It appears from Annexure-7 that Brij Mohan Pareek had sold this Nohara, with its eastern boundary wall 5 high, on 5th Jan., 77, to respondents Nos. 4 & 5, through a registered sale deed. While describing the boundaries of the Nohara, sold by Brij Mohan Pareek to respondents Nos. It appears from Annexure-7 that Brij Mohan Pareek had sold this Nohara, with its eastern boundary wall 5 high, on 5th Jan., 77, to respondents Nos. 4 & 5, through a registered sale deed. While describing the boundaries of the Nohara, sold by Brij Mohan Pareek to respondents Nos. 4 & 5, it was recited in Annexure-7 that on the eastern side, towards the entrance-gate, there was a public-chowk; on the western side, there was a wall of Brij Mohan Pareek and vacant land. On its northern side, there was vacant land and houses of Brij Mohan Pareek. 9. On 30th Aug., 74, the petitioner had made an application to Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Reengus, stating that this plot of land was in his possession, and that he wanted that the Panchayat might execute a Patta in his favour, at a concessional rate. The site was inspected by Geedaram and Govindram, Panchas, and they measured the plot of land and recommended grant of a patta in favour of the petitioner. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat thereupon issued a notice dated 6th Sept. 74, regarding the application made by the petitioner, and inviting objections from persons who had any objection to the grant of Patta No. objections were received. The Panchas recorded statements of two witnesses and of the petitioner, and on that basis, it was held that the petitioner was in possession of the plot of land in question, for the last 15-20 years. The Gram Panchayat purports to have acted under Rule 266(1) (b) of the Panchayat Rules and ordered issue of a Patta by charging price at Rs. 21- per sq. yd., amounting in all to Rs. 84/-. A sale-deed in this regard was executed by the Sarpanch-Reengus, on 26th Nov., 74. 10. As has been stated, so far as respondents Nos. 4 & 5 are concerned, they had purchased the adjoining Nohara from Brij Mohan Pareek, through a sale-deed (Annexure-7), on 5th Jan., 77. Respondent No.4, through Shivdayal, filed a revision petition against the orders of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Reengus, dated 16th Nov., 69 & 3rd Nov., 74, granting Pattas to the petitioner in respect of the two plots of land on the said two dates. The Patta dated 16th Nov., 69 was in respect of 630 sq. yds. Respondent No.4, through Shivdayal, filed a revision petition against the orders of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Reengus, dated 16th Nov., 69 & 3rd Nov., 74, granting Pattas to the petitioner in respect of the two plots of land on the said two dates. The Patta dated 16th Nov., 69 was in respect of 630 sq. yds. & 2 feet land, while the Patta of the land in question was in respect of the 42 sq. yds. of land. The Additional Collector referred to Rule 266 of the Panchayat Rules, and came to the conclusion that no reasons for transfer of the land by sale by private negotiation, as required under Rule 266, were recorded, and therefore, there did not exist any reason to effect the sale of the plot of land, without auction. 11. As a result of the dismissal of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2412/83, filed by Nauranglal & another, the net result was that the revisional order of the Additional Collector, Sikar, in so far as it related to the plot of land in question measuring 42 sq. yds. of land, remained intact, but, the grievance of respondents Nos. 4 & 5 in relation to the other plot of land measuring 630 sq. yds. & 2 sq. feet of land, was found to have no force, in the writ petition. 12. The petitioner, thus, is now concerned only with the plot of land measuring 42 sq. yds., which had been sold to him by Gram Panchayat- Reengus, but, which sale was set aside by the Additional Collector, Sikar, by his order dated 25th Sept., 78 (Annex. 10), and which order he has challenged by this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court in Kesar Singh vs. Additional Collector, Pali (1). That was a petition filed by Kesar Singh, under Article 226 of the Constitution, against an order of the Additional Collector, Pali, setting aside an order of the Panchayat, holding that there was a public-way through the field of Pratap Singh, which he had obstructed. The order was passed by the Panchayat in exercise of its powers u/s. 24(1) and clause (a) of Item-2 of the III- Schedule, under which, the Panchayat had power to widen, open, enlarge or otherwise improve any public-street, culvert or bridge, with minimum damage to the neighbouring fields. The order was passed by the Panchayat in exercise of its powers u/s. 24(1) and clause (a) of Item-2 of the III- Schedule, under which, the Panchayat had power to widen, open, enlarge or otherwise improve any public-street, culvert or bridge, with minimum damage to the neighbouring fields. An appeal lay against the order of the Panchayat, to the Panchayat Samiti u/s. 26-A, but, Pratap Singh filed an appeal to the Collector under erroneous impression that the order passed by the Panchayat was under S. 251 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned Judge referred to S. 27-A (1) (c), which laid down that revision did not lay against an order of the Panchayat in an administrative matter, from which, an appeal lay u/s. 26-A, to the Panchayat Samiti. It was held that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition u/s. 27-A, against the order of the Panchayat regarding a public-way. It may be mentioned that S. 24 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, read with clause (a) of Item No. II of the III Schedule, which was considered in Kesar Singhs case (supra), gave power to the Panchayat to widen, open, enlarge or otherwise improve any public street, culvert or bridge, and against such an administrative order, it was held that an appeal lay to the Panchayat Samiti and not a revision to the Additional Collector. 13. The present case, however, relates to sale of abadi land by the Gram Panchayat. This matter is governed by Rules 255 to 278 of the 1961 Rules. "Abadi land" means nazul land lying within the inhabited areas of a Panchayat circle which vestes or has been vested in, or has been placed at the disposal of, a Panchayat by or under an order of the State Government. A person desirous of purchasing any abadi land from the Panchayat, has to make an application in writing, in the Panchayat, under Rule 256. The application is registered in a register, and a file is opened. Thereafter, a plan of the land would be got prepared. After the plan is ready, the Panchayat shall, by resolution, nominate any three of its Panchas for holding a local inspection of the site and the nominated Panchas would submit their opinion as to the desirability, of the sale applied for. Thereafter, a plan of the land would be got prepared. After the plan is ready, the Panchayat shall, by resolution, nominate any three of its Panchas for holding a local inspection of the site and the nominated Panchas would submit their opinion as to the desirability, of the sale applied for. Then, the Panchayat takes a provisional decision, whether the proposed sale should be made or not. If the Panchayat provisionally decides that the sale should be made, it is required to publish a notice inviting objections to the proposed sale, within one month under rule 260 of the said Rules. If any objections are received, they would be disposed of. Then, rule 262 of the Rules is a crucial rule, which provides that if no objections are received under Rule 260, within one month, or, if all the objections so received have been dismissed under Rule 261, the Panchayat shall, by resolution, order auction of the land proposed to be sold on a date not earlier than one month from the date of the resolution, and at the time and place to be specified. A notice of such auction and of the date, time and the place as specified under sub rule (1) of Rule 262, shall be proclaimed in the manner as provided in sub rule (2) of Rule 133. The person who makes the last and highest bid, has to deposit ten per cent of the amount of the bid immediately on the spot, and the balance, within two months from the date of the auction. The auction is held under the supervision of the Sarpanch. The acceptance of the bid would be subject to confirmation by the Panchayat and authorities prescribed under sub-rule (3). 14. Thus, it would appear that the normal procedure for sale of a abadi land by a Gram Panchayat, is by auction of land, after complying with the formalities required for the public auction. However, Rule 266 of the Rules is an exception to Rule 262. 14. Thus, it would appear that the normal procedure for sale of a abadi land by a Gram Panchayat, is by auction of land, after complying with the formalities required for the public auction. However, Rule 266 of the Rules is an exception to Rule 262. Under Rule 266, the Panchayat may transfer any abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation, in three types of cases : The first type of cases are where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price; the second type is where for reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land; and the third type of cases are where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes or other backward classes. Where a transfer of abadi land is made by a Gram Panchayat under Rule 266, an appeal lies under Rule 270, from an original order of the Panchayat, confirming the sale of abadi land, to the Panchayat Samiti; and from such an order of the Panchayat Samiti, to the Collector; and from such an order of the Collector, to the Revenue Appellate Authority, and has to be brought within thirty days from the date of the order appealed from, exclusive of the time requisite for obtaining a copy thereof. 15. In the present case, admittedly, no appeal was filed by respondents Nos. 4 & 5, from the order of the Gram Panchayat, transferring the abadi land, under Rule 266, to the petitioner, before the Panchayat Samiti. Instead of that, respondents Nos. 15. In the present case, admittedly, no appeal was filed by respondents Nos. 4 & 5, from the order of the Gram Panchayat, transferring the abadi land, under Rule 266, to the petitioner, before the Panchayat Samiti. Instead of that, respondents Nos. 4 & 5 had filed a revision petition before the Additional Collector, under Rule 272 of the Rules, which, inter-alia provides that the State Government or any officer or authority, to whom the powers of the State Government u/s. 27-A may have been delegated by notification under section 70, on its or his own motion, or on an application made in this behalf, may, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed inter-alia by the Panchayat or the Panchayat Samiti, or the Collector (or the Revenue Appellate Authority) under Rule 265 (or transfer of abadi land under Rule 266, or allotment of lands under Rule 267 read with Rule 268), or on appeal under Rule 270, call for the connected records a.05.in doing so, direct that pending the examination of the records, such order shall be held in abeyance. After examining the records, the State Government or such officer or authority, as the case may be, may reserve, alter or modify the order of Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti, Collector or Revenue Appellate Authority. There is a proviso under Rule 272 (1) of the Rules, which provides that the power conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 272 of the Rules, shall not be exercised while an order under Rule 265 has been appealed from under Rule 270 and such appeal is pending. 16. Admittedly, in the present case, since no appeal had been filed by respondents Nos. 4 & 5 against the order of the Gram Panchayat under Rule 265 or 266 of the Rules, there was no appeal pending under Rule 270 of the Rules. The only rider against the exercise of revisional power contained in the proviso to Rule 272 (1) of the Rules, therefore, did not exist. 17. Reference may be made to the decision in Hariram & another vs. State of Rajasthan & others (2). The only rider against the exercise of revisional power contained in the proviso to Rule 272 (1) of the Rules, therefore, did not exist. 17. Reference may be made to the decision in Hariram & another vs. State of Rajasthan & others (2). In that case, in para-4 of the reported judgment, it was observed : — "The provisions regarding sale of abadi land by the Gram Panchayat have been incorporated in Chapter-XIII of the Rules & the procedure for sale has been laid down in Rules 256 to 268. Rule 270 provides for an appeal from an original order passed by the Panchayat, confirming the sale of abadi land or transfer or allotment of abadi land, to the Panchayat Samiti, and from such an appellate order of the Panchayat Samiti, a further appeal is provided to the Collector. A second appeal is provided against the appellate order of the Collector, to the Revenue Appellate Authority. However, Rule 272 provides that in cases in which no appeal is filed under Rule 270 or such appeal is not pending, then, the State Government or the officer or authority, on which the powers of the State Government have been delegated, may, on its own motion or on an application made to him in this behalf, call for the record for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the Panchayat under Rule 265, and after examining the record, the State Government or the authorised officer or authority, as the case may be, may reverse, alter or modify the order of the Panchayat. It is not in dispute that the Additional Collector had the authority as a delegate of the State Government to entertain the revision application under Rule 272 as no appeal is alleged to have been preferred before the Panchayat Samiti under Rule 270 against the order of the Gram Panchayat passed under Rule 265, confirming the sales made in favour of the two petitioners. The Additional Collector was, therefore, acting within his undoubted jurisdiction in the present proceedings and if on an examination of. The Additional Collector was, therefore, acting within his undoubted jurisdiction in the present proceedings and if on an examination of. the record relating to the two sales he found that the provisions of rules 260, 261 and 262 were not complied with by the Panchayat, while effecting the sale of the Ahatas in question in favour of the petitioners, then it cannot be said that the order of the Additional Collector was in any manner illegal or invalid." 18. Reference may next be made to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Giriraj and others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (3). In this case also, it was held that the Additional Collector was competent to hear the revision under Rule 272 specially when he found that illegality or gross injustice had taken place. The Division Bench laid down that ordinarily land should be sold by way of auction, unless, there are special reasons for not doing so, and that if land is allowed to be sold by way of negotiations without assigning any reasons then the citizen would have a right to challenge the sale on the ground that equal opportunity was not provided in his favour. 19. The same view was taken by this Court in Hari Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & others ( 4), wherein, the learned Judge referred to the decisions in Jagmal Singh vs. Collector, Ganganagar (5) & Padmaram vs. Revenue Appellate Authority & others (6), wherein, it was held that the order of sale by the Panchayat was not an order passed under any of the powers of the Panchayat, contained in Chapter-Ill, and that therefore, such an order was not appealable under Sec. 26-A of the Act. It was held that it was a revisable order. The learned Judge followed the decision in Harirams case (supra) and in Girirajs case (supra), and observed as under : — "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 for 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 proceeding of the Panchayat that the Panchayat was satisfied that auction of the land in dispute may not fetch reasonable price." 20. In the instant case, the Panchas who had been nominated for inspection of the land, had visited the site and recommended grant of Patta to the petitioner, of the land. It is not clear as to how the Gram Panchayat held the possession of the petitioner over the land which was an open land. In any event, the Gram Panchayat did not record the view that if auction took place, that plot of land would not fetch a reasonable price. Rule 266 of the Rules is, as a matter of fact, an exception to the general rule regarding transfer of abadi land by the Gram Panchayat. The ordinary rule is that the abadi land proposed to be sold should be sold by a public auction after passing of necessary resolution and issuing and proclaiming notice of auction and of the date, time and place therefor, so that, the abadi land proposed to be sold may fetch the maximum price that may be bid by various bidders. A public-body like Gram Panchayat should act openly and fairly and not in a secret manner. The exception has to be construed strictly, because, it permits transfer of abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation. The State or the public bodies should show that there has been no favouritism, nepotism, or any unfair play. Private negotiations can take place only within the limited scope provided for in Rule 266 of the Rules, where, any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and auction may not fetch reasonable price; where, auction would not be a convenient mode for disposal of land; and where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of Scheduled castes & Scheduled tribes or other backward classes. Auction in such circumstances, may not fetch reasonable price. Auction in such circumstances, may not fetch reasonable price. If there are any other reasons for doing private negotiations, reasons should be recorded in writing, and it should be shown that auction cannot be the mode of disposal. 21. In the instant case, from the site-plan (Annex.l) itself it appears that the plot of land in question was part of a public- way and any sale of such a land, firstly, ought not have been resorted to; and secondly, even if there could be any valid reason for narrowing down the public-way, it should not have been done by private negotiation, but , should have been done by an open auction. 22. It is true that so far as respondents Nos. 4 & 5 are concerned, they had not purchased the adjoining land at the time when the disputed plot of land was transferred by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner, in the year 1974. In any event, respondents Nos. 4 & 5 like any other residents of the village would have had a right to participate in the auction, if the land would have been sold by an open auction instead of by private negotiations, and if any illegality would have been brought to the notice of the revising authority, it had every jurisdiction to set it at naught, if it was satisfied that illegality had been committed. This Court, therefore will not interfere in the order passed by the Additional Collector, Sikar, dated 25th Sept., 78, in relation to the plot of land measuring 42 sq. yds. which was purported to have been transferred to the petitioner by order dated 3rd Nov., 74. 23. There is thus no force in this writ petition and it is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.