Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1495 (RAJ)

Mangilal v. Gram Panchayat Itawa

2001-09-15

S.K.KESHOTE

body2001
Honble KESHOTE, J.–The challenge is made by the petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to the order of the Additional Collector, Kota dated 30.12.1989. (2). The facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat, Itawa under its order dated 1.3.86 has given the land in dispute measuring 35 x 22 equivalent to 770 sq. feet at that rate of Rs.4/- per square feet and the parat Bhumi measuring 1015 sq. feet at the rate of Rs. 0.50/- per square feet after charging penalty for regularisation in favour of the petitioner. This decision of the Gram Panchayat, Itawa was challenged by the private respondents by filing revision application before the Additional Collector, Kota which was came to be allowed under order afore-stated. (3). Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. (4). The Additional Collector, Kota held that the land in dispute was given to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat, Itawa without following the provisions of Rules 256, 257 & 260 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter, referred as the Rules, 1961). It further held that the case of the petitioner does not fall under Rule 266 of the Rules aforesaid. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended tat the revision application filed by the private respondent before the Additional Collector, Kota against the order of the Gram Panchayat was barred by limitation. It has next been contended that the order of the Gram Panchayat, Itawa dated 1.3.86 has merged in the decision taken by the Panchayat Samiti, Itawa vide its order No. 382 dated 28.10.1986 and so long as the order of that authority is not challenged, quashed and set aside, the Additional Collector, Kota could not have entertained the revision application of the private respondent and could ave granted relief in their favour. For this contention, the factual foundation is given in para No. 9 of the writ petition. The proposal of the Gram Panchayat, Itawa dated 1.3.86 for sale of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner was approved by the Panchayat Samiti, Itawa. Lastly it is contended that the case of the petitioner falls under Rule 266 of the Rules and the Additional Collector, Kota has committed serious error of jurisdiction in interfering with the decision of Gram Panchayat, Itawa. Lastly it is contended that the case of the petitioner falls under Rule 266 of the Rules and the Additional Collector, Kota has committed serious error of jurisdiction in interfering with the decision of Gram Panchayat, Itawa. In alternate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale has been made in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat after following the provisions of the relevant rules of the Rules, 1961. (6). Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions on limitation and merger placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (1) 2. Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2) 3. The Govt. of India vs. The Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras & Ors. etc. etc. (3) On the other hand, learned counsel for private respondents has supported the order passed by the Additional Collector, Kota. (7). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. On being put by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner is in agreement that from that order of the Additional Collector, Kota it does not reflect that from the side of the petitioner that point of limitation and merger of the order of Gram Panchayat in the order of the Panchayat Samiti has been raised. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that this point has been raised before the Additional Collector, Kota. I do not agree with this contention. In para No. 13(iii), it is averred as follows:- ``(iii) Because as long as the order of Panchayat Samiti, Pipalda, dated 28.10.1986 stands, no revision against the order of Gram Panchayat, Itawa dated 1.3.1986 could be entertained and the judgment of the learned lower Court is wholly without jurisdiction. (8). So these two grounds have been raised the merger of the order of Gram Panchayat in the order of the Panchayat Samiti and limitation. (8). So these two grounds have been raised the merger of the order of Gram Panchayat in the order of the Panchayat Samiti and limitation. For limitation the ground has been raised in para No. 13 (iv) which reads as under:- ``(iv) Because Non-petitioners No. 3 to 27 had challenged the order of Gram Panchayat, Itawa dated 1.3.1986 after the lapse of nearly two years and 9 months and the revision petition filed by Non-petitioners No. 3 to 27 was hopelessly time barred and no orders could be passed on the revision petition of the Non- petitioners without deciding the point of limitation but the learned Lower Court has completely ignored this legal aspect of the case and has arbitrarily accepted the revision petition filed by Non-petitioners No. 3 to 27 which is wholly without jurisdiction. (9). Though these grounds are raised and taken by the petitioner in the petition but therefrom it cannot be taken that same were raised by the petitioner before the revisional authority. In this case the petitioner was represented before the revisional authority by the Advocate. In the petition, it is not stated by the petitioner that these points were raised by the counsel who appeared for him before the revisional authority and same has not been referred and discussed. In the absence of these averments in the writ petition it is difficult to accept what it is orally contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is no more res intergra that in the order if the reference is not there of the contentions which are alleged to have been raised, it has to be taken that those contentions have not been raised or given up by the parties concerned. Where the petitioner come up with this plea that the points were raised raised before the lower authority but the same were not referred and considered, he has to file an affidavit of the counsel who argued the matter on his behalf. In this case the petitioner has not filed the affidavit of the counsel who appeared in the matter before the revisional authority for him and argued the matter. In this case the petitioner has not filed the affidavit of the counsel who appeared in the matter before the revisional authority for him and argued the matter. In these facts the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the limitation and merger are the new points raised first time before this Court in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the same cannot be permitted. Otherwise also so far as point of merger is concerned, it is not the case where the private respondents were party to the decision/order made by the Gram Panchayat, Itawa and the Panchayat Samiti. It is in fact a case where the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Itawa has been approved by the Panchayat Samiti without affording the opportunity of hearing to the private respondent and the petitioner cannot be allowed to take the benefit of this decision to which the private respondents were not party. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the decision/order of the Panchayat Samiti was sent to the private respondents for their notice and information. (10). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, these two points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise in this petition. Otherwise also for the reasons to be recorded in the later part of the judgment on this point even if the Court has accepted the same, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. (11). The Additional Collector, Kota in its impugned order held that the land in dispute has been given to the petitioner by the panchayat without making the compliance of the provisions as contained in Rules 256, 257 and 260 of the Rules, 1961. The Additional Collector, Kota has also considered the matter with reference to Rule 266 and it is found that this case does not fall under this sub-rule. (12). During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale/transfer of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner by the Panchayat does fall under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. However in view of the findings recorded b the Additional Collector, Kota and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner the matter has to be examined, considered and decided with reference to the rules viz. However in view of the findings recorded b the Additional Collector, Kota and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner the matter has to be examined, considered and decided with reference to the rules viz. Rules 256, 257, 260 and 266 of the Rules, 1961. (13). To appreciate the points raised and arise for consideration of this Court, I consider it to be appropriate to have a glance on the scheme of the Rules, 1961. (14). Chapter XIII of the Rules, 1961 relates to the sale of immovable properties and contracts. Rule 255 to 273 relates to the sale of Abadi land. Rule 255 of the Rules, 1961 defines the Abadi land. (15). Rule 256 of the Rules, 1961 provides that a person 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. This rule further requires that the applicant shall, alongwith his application, deposit a sum of two rupees with the Panchayat towards the expenses of the preparation of the plan of the land sought to be purchased. (16). Rule 257 of the Rules, 1961 makes a provision for the preparation of plan of the land proposed to be purchased by the applicant. This rule requires that the application under Rule 256 is to be entered in the register in Form XLIX and Panchayat shall get prepare a plan of the land in question by the competent person who shall be paid his remuneration for the work out of the deposit made of the sum of Rs. 2/- as provided under Rule 256. The plan prepared under this rule shall describe the boundaries of the land to be sold which shall be shown in red ink, shall bear the signatures of the applicant and of the person who prepared it, shall give two measurements of the land to be sold and shall specify the scale on which the plan has been prepared. (17). Rule 258 of the Rules, 1961 provides that after the plan is ready, the Panchayat shall by resolution nominate any three of the Panchas for holding a local inspection of the site. (17). Rule 258 of the Rules, 1961 provides that after the plan is ready, the Panchayat shall by resolution nominate any three of the Panchas for holding a local inspection of the site. The Panchas nominated by the Panchayat shall submit their opinion to the Panchayat as to the desirability of the sale of land applied for, after taking into consideration the following matters, namely:- ``(a) whether the sale applied for will affect the facilities for going and coming enjoyed by the villagers. (b) whether such sale will affect beauty and cleanliness of the locality. (d) such other matters as may appear to be relevant. (18). Under Rule 259 of the Rules, 1961, the Panchayat shall then provisionally decide at 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, the fact of such rejection shall be duly communicated to the applicant and he 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. (19). Rule 260 of the Rules, 1961 makes a provision to issue and publication of notice of this proposed sale of the land inviting objections against it from the public. (20). Rule 261 of the Rules, 1961 provides for disposal of objections against proposed sale of the land. (21). Rule 262 of the Rules, 1961 pertains to the action of land. If no objection is received under rule 260 within one months, 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. This rule further provides that a notice of such auction and of the date, time and place specified shall be proclaimed in the manner provided in sub-rule (2) of rule 133 and the provisions of sub-rule (3) and (5) of that the shall apply mutatis mutandis. (22). This rule further provides that a notice of such auction and of the date, time and place specified shall be proclaimed in the manner provided in sub-rule (2) of rule 133 and the provisions of sub-rule (3) and (5) of that the shall apply mutatis mutandis. (22). Rule 263 of the Rules, 1961 provides that where the person who made the last highest bid shall 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, failing which the land shall forthwith be resold. (23). Rule 264 of the Rules, 1961 lays down the procedure of the auction. All auctions under rule 262 shall be held under the supervision of the Sarpanch. (24). Rule 265 of the Rules, 1961 is a provision for confirmation of action held. This provision is regarding the acceptance of the highest bid which shall be subject to confirmation by the Panchayat or the authorities prescribed under sub-rule (3) as the case may be. (25). Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 relates to transfer of abadi land by private negotiation and this is the relevant provision which is to be reproduced in the judgment which reads as under:- ``266. Transfer of abadi land by private negotiation. - (1) The Panchayat may transfer any abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation in the following cases- (a) Where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price; (b) where for reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be a convenient mode o disposal of the land; (c) where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes or other backward classes; (d) where the persons are in possession of the abadi land for 20 years of more but less than 42 years, one-third of the prevailing market price and in case of possession of over 40 years, one sixth of the prevailing market price shall be charged. (2) The Panchayat may by resolution, transfer by way of sale without charging any price therefor, any abadi land of which the probable value does not exceed Rs. 200/- in favour of any institution for a public purpose. (26). (2) The Panchayat may by resolution, transfer by way of sale without charging any price therefor, any abadi land of which the probable value does not exceed Rs. 200/- in favour of any institution for a public purpose. (26). Rule 271 of the Rules, 1961 provides that after payment has been made as provided in rule 263, the sale has been confirmed as provided in rule 265 and an appeal if any, under rule 270 has been disposed of or, it no appeal has been preferred, the time limit prescribed therefor has expired, a deed in the form set out in Schedule IV evidencing the sale of the abadi land auctioned shall be executed on behalf of the Panchayat in the manner provided in rule 278. (27). Other provisions of the Rules, 1961 are not relevant to decide the controversy arise in this case and need not to be referred. (28). The resolution of the Panchayat dated 1.3.86 is on the record as Annexure-2 of this petition. From this resolution I find that the Panchayat has proceeded in this matter as if the Tehsildar is superior authority in the matter and its direction is binding on it. From this resolution it is borne out that it is not the case of the sale of the land by public auction but the case of the regularisation of the unauthorised possession of the petitioner on the land in dispute. The reference has been made by the Panchayat of the decision given by the Tehsildar concerned in the proceedings initiate against the petitioner for the removal of his encroachment on the land. From this decision it has been taken by the Panchayat that the Tehsildar has not ordered for eviction of the petitioner and the land in dispute is now abadi land, the Panchas have been directed to pass the order for its regularisation. The possession of the petitioner was taken to be on the land from 1972 on the basis of the evidence recorded by the Panchayat. The possession of the petitioner on the land was found to be for the last 18 to 20 years. The Panchayat has resolved in this resolution that the compliance of the provisions of Rules 257, 258 and 260 has been made. The possession of the petitioner on the land was found to be for the last 18 to 20 years. The Panchayat has resolved in this resolution that the compliance of the provisions of Rules 257, 258 and 260 has been made. From reading of this resolution of Gram Panchayat I do not find anywhere therein that the matter has been considered with reference to Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 and under that provision by private negotiation the land in dispute has been transferred in favour of the petitioner. The reference has been given to the Rules 257, 258 and 260 of the Rules, 1961 and therefrom it can be taken that the Panchayat proceeded in the mater to transfer the land by way of sale thereof under the Rules, 1961. But it has passed an order of the regularisation of the possession of the land in favour of the petitioner taking it to be a binding command of the Tehsildar concerned. The order of Tehsildar is there on the record as Annexure-1 and therefrom I find that the Tehsildar has held that the petitioner has made the encroachment on the sawai chak land (land in dispute). The proceedings have been initiated for his eviction but the Tehsildar has not passed the order of the eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute on the ground that he is having long possession. The order has been passed to charge the penalty from him. Then it is stated that the land falls in the extension of the abadi area of the Panchayat and the regularisation of the possession of the land of the petitioner can be made by the Panchayat at its level. The petitioner has not challenged this order of Tehsildar and it attained the finality. Leaving apart the fact that this order is nothing but only a favour extended to a person who has made encroachment on the Government land for consideration or without consideration which is not the matter for consideration of the Court at this stage nor it can be, but I am satisfied from the facts of this case that this order was nothing but only an act on the part of the Tehsildar to extend the favour to the petitioner. It was a case of encroachment made on the Government land and the status of the petitioner was only a rank trespasser and this concession in the form of favour extended to the petitioner by the Tehsildar was not called for. (29). That is only re-one part of this order. But second part of this order is more serious and exhibited an example of favouratism to this person by the Tehsildar beyond all accepted norms from the officer of this category. The Tehsildar has made it easy for the petitioner to get the regularisation of his unauthorised possession on the land from the Panchayat. I fail to see how such a direction could have been given by the Tehsildar in this matter. This order made by the Tehsildar has been taken as a binding command by the Panchayat and it in its turn in total violation of the Rules, 1961 passed the impugned resolution and this illegal possession has been regularised by giving the patta of the land in favour of the petitioner. In the resolution though as said earlier the reference has not been made to the Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 but from the patta which has been given to the petitioner of this land in dispute I find that the same has been given under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. (30). Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the land has not been purchased by the petitioner in auction. He also admits that this land was not put to auction by the Panchayat. In view of these undisputed facts mere reference of the Rules 256, 257, 258 & 260 in the resolution is of no significance whatsoever except to create a confusion for the public by the Panchayat. (31). Rule 257 is the rule for preparation of plan. Rule 258 is the rule for inspection of site and Rule 260 is the rule for inviting objections against the proposed sale. These are the provisions relating to the procedural part to be followed before the land is actually put to public auction. Merely on following these three provisions of the Rules, 1961 it cannot be taken to be a case that the sale of the land has been made legally in favour of the petitioner by the panchayat. These are the provisions relating to the procedural part to be followed before the land is actually put to public auction. Merely on following these three provisions of the Rules, 1961 it cannot be taken to be a case that the sale of the land has been made legally in favour of the petitioner by the panchayat. The land admittedly falls in the abadi area and there are two methods provided for transfer of the same i.e. either by public auction or by the private negotiation as provided under the Rules, 1961 is taken to be a provision for regularisation of the unauthorised possession of the persons on the land of the Panchayat, it is still of little help to the petitioner in this case. I am satisfied that it is not the case of the transfer of the land in dispute by sale as provided under the Rules, 1961 by the Panchayat to the petitioner. (32). The question next falls for consideration of the Court is whether it was permissible in this case to the Panchayat to transfer this land by way of regularisation in favour of the petitioner under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. (33). Having gone through the facts of this case and the provisions of the Rules, 1961, I am satisfied that this case does not fall under that rule also. When this case does not fall under Rule 266 and still the transfer of the land has been made by regularisation of illegal possession of the petitioner on the land in dispute by the Panchayat it is nothing but only an act of favouratism extended to the petitioner for consideration or without consideration by the Sarpanch. To attract the provision of transfer of abadi land by private negotiation it is permissible to the panchayat in the cases where the applicant has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction thereof may not fetch reasonable price. Secondly where for the reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the land. Thirdly where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes or other backward classes. (34). Secondly where for the reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the land. Thirdly where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes or other backward classes. (34). A mere perusal of this rule of the Rules, 1961 gives a discretionary powers and it is not necessary, obligatory and binding on the Panchayat that even if the case falls under any of aforesaid three clauses, it has to be transferred the abadi land by private negotiation. In an appropriate case even if the case falls under either of the three clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961, the Panchayat may decline to transfer the abadi land by a private negotiation. Looking to the developing tendency of he citizens to make the encroachment on the sawai chak of the Panchayat land and then to take the recourse to Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961, it is a high time where the Panchayat should also consider whether this rule is to be put in service for the regularisation of unauthorised possession of those persons on the Government or Panchayat land. Rule 266 is to be read in the context of the present scenario in the country as well as this developing tendency of the citizens to take it to be their right to make trespass on Government land or panchayat land. A mere reading of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 gives out that it nowhere contemplates, provides or authorises the Panchayat to regularise the possession of the rank trespasser on the land of Panchayat by transfer of the same by private negotiation. Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 talks of a plausible claim of the title to the land. Second clause of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 266 relates to the case where the panchayat is of the opinion that the auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the land. That also does not cover the case of a rank trespasser. The petitioner is a rank trespasser on the land is not in dispute as he has accepted the order of the Tehsildar Annexure-1 dated 25.7.1981. That also does not cover the case of a rank trespasser. The petitioner is a rank trespasser on the land is not in dispute as he has accepted the order of the Tehsildar Annexure-1 dated 25.7.1981. From this order it is clear that the petitioner was a rank trespasser on the land in dispute and against whom the proceedings have been initiated for his eviction U/s. 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956. It is different matter that ultimately the Tehsildar has extended the favour to him and not passed the order for his eviction. It is unfortunate that the Gram panchayat has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and rather considered it to be a direction from the Tehsildar to regularise the illegal possession of the petitioner on the land in dispute. It is unfortunate that the Gram Panchayat instead of making efforts that the unauthorised occupant of sawai chak may not get any benefits, the Panchayat has proceeded in this case in a manner and fashion so as to encourage, support and protect the rank trespasser on the sawai chak or panchayat land. If this Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 is to be read to mean for protection of the unauthorised possession of rank trespasser on the sawai chak or panchayat land it is nothing but only a fraud to the statutory rules and the act under which the same are framed. This provision as contained in Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 is there to protect the possession of the bonafide, honest and law binding citizens who have plausible claim of title on the land but are not having the document of the same. This rule cannot be read, understood, accepted and applied for protection of the possession of the rank trespasser on the sawai chak or panchayat land. Both the panchayat and the Tehsildar have not considered this aspect of the matter and taken it to be as if a mandate of the law to regularise the possession of the rank trespasser on the government or panchayat land. This way in which the Tehsildar and Panchayat proceeded in the matter is permitted by the Court it will render nugatory provisions as contained in Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. This way in which the Tehsildar and Panchayat proceeded in the matter is permitted by the Court it will render nugatory provisions as contained in Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. Otherwise also if we got by the spirit of the Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 the case of the petitioner does not fall thereunder. From the resolution of the Panchayat it nowhere turns out that it has accepted the plausible claim of title of the petitioner on the land in dispute. In case the panchayat would have taken little trouble to read the order of the Tehsildar Annexure-1 in toto it is a clear case of a rank trespasser who is praying for the regularisation of his unauthorised possession on the government land. It is unfortunate that the panchayat has read only second part of the order of Tehsildar. In view of the order Annexure-1 of Tehsildar passed U/Sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, it cannot be taken that the petitioner has a plausible claim of title on the land. The Panchayat has not recorded any finding also that the petitioner has a plausible claim of title on the land. In order to attract the provision of clause (a) of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 there are two pre requisites, first is that the person asking for the regularisation must have a plausible claim of title to the land and second that apart from that claim it should also appeared that the auction may not fetch reasonable price. Where we talk of the plausible claim it must be taken that Panchayat has some material before it to show that the person asking for the patta of the land in dispute by regularisation of his possession thereon has some semblances of title over that land although he may not be able to establish his clear title. So first pre requisite of this clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 is not complied with by the Panchayat. So far as second pre requisite of this provision is concerned, the Panchayat has nowhere said and this resolution is totally silent on this aspect. The Panchayat even not whisper in this resolution that an auction of the land may not fetch the reasonable price. So far as second pre requisite of this provision is concerned, the Panchayat has nowhere said and this resolution is totally silent on this aspect. The Panchayat even not whisper in this resolution that an auction of the land may not fetch the reasonable price. The petitioner has utterly failed to establish a plausible claim of title on the land in dispute and secondly the panchayat has also not said that the auction of the same will not fetch reasonable price. This case rightly was not taken to fall under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 by the Additional Collector, Kota, Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961 is not applicable to this case. From the resolution of the Panchayat I find that it is a pre determination decision to extend the favour and benefit to the petitioner. What it said in the resolution that after perusing the file and the application of the petitioner to make the regularisation of his possession of the land is reasonable and secondly that the Tehsildar has given direction for regularisation of the possession of the petitioner. The both these are not the relevant consideration for the applicability of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. The Panchayat has resolved to regularise the unauthorised possession of the petitioner on non est grounds. This resolution is wholly illegal and no benefit could have been given to the petitioner under the rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. The patta which has been issued to the petitioner of this land in dispute in pursuance of its resolution also of no force, benefit and validity. In the resolution the reference has been made by the Panchayat to the fact that petitioner is in possession of the land for the last 18 to 20 years. The possession no doubt is there of the petitioner on the land in dispute but he is thee on the land as a rank trespasser and it is of no substance, value and relevant to extend any benefit to him of regularisation thereof under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. (35). The possession no doubt is there of the petitioner on the land in dispute but he is thee on the land as a rank trespasser and it is of no substance, value and relevant to extend any benefit to him of regularisation thereof under Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. (35). When this resolution made regularising thereunder illegal, unauthorised possession of the petitioner on the land is contrary to the Rule 266 of the rules, 1961 if the order of the Additional Collector, Kota is set aside by this Court sitting under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, it will result in restoration of this illegal resolution. Though the order of the Additional Collector, Kota is perfectly legal and justified but even if it is taken that on the question of limitation in filing the application or merger of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat in the order of the Panchayat Samiti are taken to be sufficient ground to set aside the order still it is not a fit case where any relief can be granted to the petitioner. The law is well settled that this Court sitting under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution will not interfere with the order even if it is found to be illegal where the result of the setting aside thereof is restoration of any illegal order. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution is a extraordinary equitable jurisdiction and it will not perpetuate the illegality by restoring any illegal order merely because the order impugned is illegal. If any reference is required the reference may have to be decision of the Apex Court in case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (4); and two decisions of this Court in case of Jagan Singh vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan & Anr. (5); Himmat Jain vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (6). Reference may have also to one decision of the Kerala High Court in case of A.M. Mani vs. Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Trivandrum & Ors. (7); and two decisions of patna High Court in case of Devendra Prasad Gupta vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (8) and Chintamani Sharan Nath Sahadeo vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (9). (36). (7); and two decisions of patna High Court in case of Devendra Prasad Gupta vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (8) and Chintamani Sharan Nath Sahadeo vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (9). (36). As a result of the aforesaid discussion this writ petition is wholly misconceived, misplaced and frivolous and accordingly the same is dismisses with cost to the contesting respondent No. 2 only which is quantified to Rs. 2,000/-.