JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 26-11-96 (Annx.5), by which the revision of the petitioner has been rejected by the District, Collector under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayanti Raj Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act, 1994"). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that an allotment by auction was made in favour of contesting respondent on 2-3-89, being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 2,100/-, by the Gram Panchayat, 21-GG, district Sri Ganganagar, Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner filed a revision under Section 97 of the Act before the District Collector challenging the aforesaid allotment, which has been rejected by the impugned judgment and order, Hence this petition. 3. The writ petition has been filed on various grounds, but in para 5 and Ground (i) of the petition, a specific averment has been made by the petitioner that the auction allotment made in favour of respondent No. 3 required approval under the provisions of Rule 265 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short, "the Rules, 1961"), as prevalent at that time, which had not been sought. Therefore, the allotment is bad. The said Rule 265 reads as under : " Confirmation of auction held,- (1) The acceptance of the highest bid shall be subject to confirmation by the Panchayat and the authorities prescribed under sub-rule (3). (3) Where the bid of the land auctioned exceeds two hundred rupees in amount, the Panchayat shall address, for the approval of the proposed sale at the price equal to the amount of the highest bid ................. (ii) the Collector, if such amount exceeds Rs. 2,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 5,000/-; and (iii) the State Government, if such amount exceeds Rs. 5,000/-. (4) The Panchayat or any authority or officer specified in sub-rule (3) may refuse to confirm a bid if in its or his opinion the full value of the land to be sold has not been made, and in such cases the amount of ten per cent of the bid deposited by the highest bidder shall be returned to him without interest." 4. The respondents have filed a reply but did not deny the averments made in para 5 of the writ petition and Ground (i) thereof and there is nothing on record to show that approval had been sought from the District Collector as required under Rule 265. Even in the allotment letter (Annx.2), the said relevant information has been simply crossed, Clause (2) of the allotment order specifically provides for furnishing the information as on what date the required approval had been granted by the Competent Authority. Instead of filling up that column, the allotting authority, i.e. respondent No.2, had crossed it. In absence of any specific denial of such averments and for want of material on record to show that the approval was sought, the allotment in favour of the contesting respondent become bad in law. 5. This Court has dealt with a similar issue under the same Act and the Rules in Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 AIHC 2648 , wherein it was held by this Court that the requirement of approval was mandatory and in absence of an approval, the sale becomes ineffective. The Court observed as under : "In Maharaja Chintamani Sarannath v. State of Bihar (1999) 8 SCC 16 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that even if the order is found to be bad/ illegal / without jurisdiction, the Courts may not interfere if setting aside the order amounts to reviving an invalid order. Moreso, it is settled proposition of law that if the Statute provides for an approval of a higher authority, the order cannot be given effect to unless it gets the approval and the order remains inconsequential. In the instant case, admittedly, the approval was not granted by the Competent Authority and the Patta was issued within thirty days without waiting for approval. Approval was not accorded even after expiry of thirty days, therefore, it cannot be said that the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner had any sanctity whatsoever, for the reason that the matter goes to the root of the cause and in case where approval of the higher authority is required, the Lower Body did not have any competence to finalise the order, Thus, the order becomes nullity for want of competence and remains inconsequential and unenforceable. (Vide Trilochan Mishra etc. (Vide Trilochan Mishra etc. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 733 ; Union of India v. M/s. Bhimsen Walaiti Ram, AIR 1971 SC 2295 ; State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, AIR 1972 SC 1816 ; State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1234 ; and Laxmikant v. Satyawan, AIR 1996 SC 2052 ) ." 6. In the instant case, the allotment has been made in flagrant violation of the statutory rules and the same cannot be saved and is liable to be quashed for the reason that the allotment letter had been issued by an authority having no jurisdiction. The same could have been issued only after obtaining approval. 7. Thus, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned allotment in favour of respondent No. 3 and the order of the Revisional Authority dated 26-11-96 (Annx.5) are quashed and set- aside. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******