JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition filed under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India involves a question of law regarding interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 and the Rules made thereunder. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that on 11-11-1982 Gram-panchayat Ramgarh on the basis of the inspection of the petitioner's land which was carried out by one Up-sarpanch, allotted the land belonging to the petitioner in favour of one Kaliansingh, non petitioner No. 4. It has been contended by the petitioner that said Kaliansingh had never applied for allotment of the petitioner's land. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid allotment made in favour of non-petitioner No. 4, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of allotment of Gram-panchayat, Ramgarh, dated 11-11-1982 vide Annexure 4. The Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh after taking all facts and circumstances of the case into consideration arrived at the conclusion that non petitioner No. 4 was entitled to allotment of land measuring 80 sq. feet as he was below the poverty line as contemplated by the provisions of Rules 256 to 267 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. It will be pertinent to mention the relevant Rules in this regard. 3. Rule 255 of the Rules of 1961 defines the abadi land which means nazool land lying within the inhabited areas of panchayat circle which vests or has been vested in or has been placed at the disposal of panchayat by or under the orders of the State Government.Rule 256 of the Rules of 1961 provides that any person who is desirous of purchasing any abadi land from the Panchayat shall make an application in writing to the panchayat giving such description thereof as may be sufficient to identify the land proposed to be purchased. The concerned applicant shall along with his application deposit a sum of Rs. 200/- with the panchayat towards expenses of the preparation of the plan of the land sought to be purchased.Rule 257 of the Rules deals with the preparation of the plan by the panchayat upon receipt of an application as contemplated under Rule 256.Rule 258 of the Rules which deals with the inspection of the sites contemplates that as soon as the plan is ready, the panchayat shall by a resolution nominate any three of the panchas for carrying out local inspection of the site. The panchas so nominated shall submit their opinion to the panchayat regarding the desirability of the sale applied, for after taking into consideration the following matters:- (a) whether the sale applied for will affect the facilities for going and coming enjoyed by the villagers? (b) whether such sale will affect the rights of easements owned by other persons? (c) whether such sale will affect beauty and cleanliness of the locality? (d) such other matters as may appear to be corned authorities. Rule 259 of the Rules of 1961 provides that the Panchayat shall then provisionally decide in a meeting whether the proposed sale should or should not be made. If it decides not to make the sale, the application shall be rejected and the fact of such rejection shall be duly communicated to the applicant who shall not be entitled to claim refund of the amount spent by way of remuneration for the preparation of the plan in accordance with Rule 257.Rule 260 of the Rules which is a very salient provision of the Rules of 1961 contemplates issuance and publication of the notice to the aggrieved parties. It provides that after the panchayat provisionally decides that the sale should be made, it shall publish a notice as prescribed in form L inviting objections to the proposed sale within one month from the date of such publication in the manner laid down in sub-rule (2). It provides that after the panchayat provisionally decides that the sale should be made, it shall publish a notice as prescribed in form L inviting objections to the proposed sale within one month from the date of such publication in the manner laid down in sub-rule (2). The notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be prepared in duplicate and one copy thereof shall be affixed to a conspicuous place on the land proposed to be sold, the other copy being returned to the panchayat office after obtaining the signatures of at least two respectable persons of the locality thereon in token of such affixation.Rule 261 of the Rules which deals with disposal of the objections invited from the concerned parties, provides that the objections, if any, received in response to the notice issued under Rule 260 shall be disposed of by the panchayat after giving the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.Rule 262 which deals with the auction of the disputed land provides that in the event of nonreceipt or objections 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 the 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. Thereupon a notice of such auction and of the date, time and place shall be specified under sub-rule (1) shall be proclaimed in the manner provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 133 and the provisions of sub-rules (3) & (5) of that rule shall apply mutatis mutandis.Rule 264 of the Rules contemplates confirmation of auction held on the acceptance of the highest bid which shall be subject to confirmation by the Panchayat and other con-Rule 267 of the Rules pertains to allotment of land free of charge. The said rule provides that the panchayat may also allot abadi land within the panchayat circle free of charge for residential houses under S. 31 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the said allotment may be made up to 50 sq. The said rule provides that the panchayat may also allot abadi land within the panchayat circle free of charge for residential houses under S. 31 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the said allotment may be made up to 50 sq. yards of land in village abadies free of charge to the members of SC/ST, backward classes, village artisans and landless labourers who do not own houses site/houses and also to flood victims whose houses have been washed away or the house sites have been rendered unfit for future habitation due to floods.Rule 270 of the Rules provides for the remedy of appeal against the decision of the panchayat confirming the sale of the abadi land under Rule 265 or transfer of abadi land under Rule 266 or allotment of land under Rules 267-268 to the panchayat samiti and from the order of panchayat samiti to the Collector who is appellate authority underthe Act. Rule 272 deals with the remedy of revision lo the State Government against the decision of the Collector or revenue Appellate Authority or such powers may be exercised by the Collector as a revisional authority on behalf of the State Government. 4. A perusal of the orders passed by the panchayat samiti and that of the Collector, clearly reveals that the allotment of the land measuring 80 sq. feet was made by the Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh by its order, dated 11-11-1982 (Annexure 4) in favour of one Kaliansingh, non-petitioner No. 4 after carrying out the inspection of the land and after inviting objections from the concerned parties in accordance with Rule 267 of Rules of 1961 as referred to above. It has been specifically recorded in the said order that the petitioner Vishwanath did not appear before the panchayat nor he filed any objections to the proposed allotment of the land in question in favour of non-petitioner No. 4. It was on the basis of the collective decision of the panchas and also keeping in view the fact that non-petitioner No. 4 was below the poverty line that the allotment of land was done free of charge by charging nominal fee of Rs. 7/- for preparation of the site-plan. Aggrieved by the decision of the panchayat, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e., panchayat samiti which set aside the decision of the gram panchayat. 7/- for preparation of the site-plan. Aggrieved by the decision of the panchayat, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e., panchayat samiti which set aside the decision of the gram panchayat. Against the decision of the panchayat Samiti a revision was preferred before the Collector, Sawaimadhopur. The Collector after examining the rival claims of the parties arrived at the conclusion that in case the petitioner was aggrieved by the allotment of his land in favour of non-petitioner No. 4 he had the remedy of moving the civil court by way of a civil suit for declaration of his title etc. which he did not avail since the civil court alone is competent to decide such matters. Instead of availing the said remedy the petitioner had moved to the Collector who consequently disposed of the revision petition with the observation that the panchayat samiti was not competent to entertain appeal against the orders of village panchayat, since the matter vests entirely within the jurisdiction of the civil court and consequently restored the order passed by the gram-panchayat vide its order, dated 11-2-1985. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Collector the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this court. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant documents and the orders passed by the courts below, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the Collector, Sawaimadhopur, dated 11 -2-1985 is perfectly right as the same was passed in accordance with law and the Collector was absolutely justified in recording a finding that the question pertaining to the titles etc. should be decided by the civil court and should not be agitated before the Revenue Authorities. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the gram panchayat or the panchayat samiti, he should have availed proper remedy by filing a declaratory suit before the competent civil court and should not have moved either before the panchayat samiti or before the Collector as has happened in this case. As a matter of fact the petitioner has been ill advised and has not availed the proper remedy for correction of his title etc. concerning the land in question for which the civil court alone is competent to decide. 6. As a matter of fact the petitioner has been ill advised and has not availed the proper remedy for correction of his title etc. concerning the land in question for which the civil court alone is competent to decide. 6. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. It will however, be open to the petitioner to avail the proper remedy before the civil court if he chooses to do so in accordance with law.Petition dismissed. *******