JUDGMENT 1. - Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 provides selling of strips of land at market value, which are not fit to be disposed of as plots and to be sold to the owners of the adjoining plots at the market value to be calculated keeping in view the prevailing price of land as ascertained and as such strip of land is to be disposed of on an outright sale of the adjoining property is free hold, and leased it out the adjoining property owner has lease-hold rights. Rule 23 reads as under: 23. Strip of Land-(1) Strip to be sold at market value and its determination.-Small strips of land which are not fit to be disposed of as plots shall be sold to the owners of the adjoining plots at the market value to be calculated keeping in view the prevailing price of land as ascertained from the preceding sale of land in the area. Such strip of land shall be disposed of on an outright sale of the adjoining property is free-hold, and leased it out the adjoining property owner has lease-hold rights. (2) Auction-Where two or more persons are interested in the strip there shall be auction only between those where plots or building adjoining the strip of land provided that before auctioning such strip of land a public notice shall be issued. (3) Land use.-These strips of land may be sold for such purpose as is permissible under the rules, regulating sale of land in the area and for such construction as is permissible under those rules, provides that before disposing any strip of land, building line shall be demarcate which shall be maintained.' 2. The petitioner under the said rules had applied to the Naga Parishad, Kota for allotment of strip of land to him. The matter was processe when the UIT came into force. The petitioner moved an application before the UIT as well on 9.1.1982 and after consideration of the facts and circumstance of the case, this strip of land was sold to the petitioner for an amount o Rs. 5,062.50 which amount was deposited by the petitioner vide receipt No 2035 dated 9.3.84. Later on the petitioner was informed that because of the reason that the plot had commercial value, the petitioner was directed t deposit another amount of Rs. 5,062.50 which amount was deposited by the petitioner vide receipt No 2035 dated 9.3.84. Later on the petitioner was informed that because of the reason that the plot had commercial value, the petitioner was directed t deposit another amount of Rs. 5,062.50 which was also deposited on 30.4.1985 Sanction was also accorded by the Collector on 9.4.1985. A sale-deed was also executed in favour of the petitioner which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Kota on 20.1.1988 (Annexure-3). After completion and execution of the sale-deed, the respondent No. 2, who is said to be the tenant of the petitioner in the garage and was ordered to be evicted at the instance of the petitioner, moved an application by way of an appeal before the Collector to review its decision. The Collector set aside the sale deed vide its order dated 20.8.1990 vide Annexure-4. Being aggrieved against the order Annexure-4, the petitioner has come up in the present writ petition for quashing the same. 3. It is not disputed that the strip of land is adjoining the house of the petitioner. Rule 23 aforesaid empowers the authority to sell the land to the owners of the lease-holders of the adjoining area. The petitioner was entitled to such transfer. Price was paid by the petitioner. Registered sale-deed was also executed vide Annexure-3. The Collector exercising the power under section 80 of the Municipalities Act had set aside the sale-deed on the application moved by the third party who had no right for getting the transfer in his favour. Section 80 provides that the Board is competent to transfer any moveable or immovable property belonging to it if it is in confirmity with the Act or the rules made therein. The Collector in the impugned order had reviewed its earlier order and also even set aside the sale-deed primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not having the possession of the strip of land. Rule prescribes that such strip of land should be sold or leased out or allotted to the persons who have their property adjoining to it as owners. This condition was completely fulfilled by the petitioner. The matter was thoroughly examined by the Board and also the UIT. Rule prescribes that such strip of land should be sold or leased out or allotted to the persons who have their property adjoining to it as owners. This condition was completely fulfilled by the petitioner. The matter was thoroughly examined by the Board and also the UIT. The Collector had also given the sanction, sale-deed was also executed and in such condition once the matter had been properly scrutinised and on completion of the sale-deed, it was not competent for the Collector to review its own decision for the reason that no illegality had been committed by executing the sale-deed as per the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules abid. The intention of Rule 23 is very clear that such strip of land should be sold or leased out to such persons who own adjoining land. The private non-petitioner is not said to be the owner of any adjoining land. The order Annexure-4 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the above discussion.The writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure-4 is quashed with a cost of Rs. 5,00/-.Petition Allowed with costs. *******