Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1695 (RAJ)

Jagdish v. Addl. District Magistrate-II

2002-10-04

S.K.KESHOTE

body2002
Honble KESHOTE, J–All these matters related to the dispute between the parties in respect of land allotted to them by the Gram Panchayat, Sardulpura, Panchayat Samiti Dudu, District Jaipur and the same are being taken up for hearing together and decided by this common order. Otherwise also these matters were ordered to be heard together by the Court. Facts In Writ Petition No. 3276199 (2). Petitioner Jagdish son of Ladu Ram in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 18.6.1999 (Annexure-8) passed by the Additional District Magistrate-]], Jaipur. In alternate prayer is made to restrain the respondents from disturbing his possession over the land allotted to him by the respondent No. 2 under its resolution dated 18.5.1998 (Annexure-5). (3). The facts which gave rise to the petition are that a piece of land in Abadi area of the village measuring 183 Sq. Yards (33 x 50) is alleged to be in,,the possession of the petitioner since last 35 years. The petitioner submitted an application on 4.6.1997 under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short `the Rules, 1996), before the respondent No. 2 and prayed therein to regularize his possession over the land in dispute for the use thereof for residence. The respondent No.2 alleged to have appointed three Panchas to inspect the site as per the Rule 146 of the Rules, 1996. Two panchas namely, Rampal Choudhary and Rampal Yadav prepared the inspection report on 18.7.1998. As per the Rule 148 of the Rules, 1996 the Gram Panchayat alleged to have issued a notice inviting objections against issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner, from the residents of the village. (4). In para No. 5 of the petition it is admitted that the non-petitioner No.3 raised objections against sale of this land to the petitioner but same were disallowed by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No.2 vide its resolution (Annexure-4) resolved to grant patta of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner on `nazarana at the rate of Rs.15/- per Sq. Yard. In pursuance of this resolution of the respondent No.2 the petitioner deposited the amount of `nazarana and patta (Annexure-5) has been issued in his favour on 18.5.1998. The petitioner prayed for grant of permission for construction of pucca house on the land. Yard. In pursuance of this resolution of the respondent No.2 the petitioner deposited the amount of `nazarana and patta (Annexure-5) has been issued in his favour on 18.5.1998. The petitioner prayed for grant of permission for construction of pucca house on the land. He also alleged to have deposited Rs.250/- on 23.8.1998 towards fee. The respondent No. 2 stated to have given the permission to the petitioner for construction of the pucca house on this land. (5). The petitioner in para No. 9 of the petition alleged that all of sudden the respondent No. 3 has fi-led a revision petition before the Additional District Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The revision petition was allowed by the respondent No. 1 under its order dated 18.6.1999 and. the patta issued in favour of the petitioner of the disputed land has been cancelled. Thus, this writ petition. (6). On 15.7.1999 notices were issued to the respondents on 27.2.2002 writ petition was admitted. The Court has been pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 18.6.1999 (Annexure-8). The respondent No. 2 and 3 filed reply to the writ petition. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply. Facts of Revision Petition No. 152 of 2000 (7). Plaintiff-petitioner Suwa Lal filed the suit out of which this revision arises, for injunction against defendant non- petitioners to restrain them from making any construction over the land in dispute. The dispute raised with respect to the land which was allotted in the name of the non-petitioner No. 3, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3276/99. Along with the suit an application has also been filed by the plaintiff petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sambhar Lake under its order dated 27.10.1998 accepted that application and directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed land and not to put any construction thereon. On appeal filed by the defendant non-petitioners, that order came to be reversed by the Additional District Judge, Sambhar Lake vide its judgment dated 7th of December, 1999, hence this revision petition. Facts of Writ Petition No. 1558 of 2002 (8). Petitioner Suwa Lal on 7th April, 1997 moved an application for grant of land for residential purpose which was in his possession. Facts of Writ Petition No. 1558 of 2002 (8). Petitioner Suwa Lal on 7th April, 1997 moved an application for grant of land for residential purpose which was in his possession. The Gram Panchayat appointed a committee of three panchas, to make the site inspection and submit report. They submitted their report. The Gram Panchayat invited objections and ultimately vide resolution dated 18.2.1998 resolved to issue the patta in favour of the petitioner the land in question, at the rate of Rs.5/- per Sq. yard. The respondent No.4 challenged this resolution of the Gram Panchayat aforestated by filing an appeal on 20.6.2000 before the Panchayat Samiti, Dudu. This appeal was decided on 12.3.2001. The appellate authority modified the resolution of Gram Panchayat to the extent that from the area of the land allotted to the petitioner a part thereof was deleted. As a result of this judgment, Jagdish son of respondent No. 4 in this petition. has been benefited. Against this order of Panchayat Samiti, Dudu the petitioner filed revision petition before the Additional Collector No.III, Jaipur. The revision petition was dismissed on 18.12.2001, hence this writ petition. (9). Shri Hanuman Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner Jagdish contended that the revision petition before the Additional Collector No.III, jaipur City filed by the respondent No.3 without availing remedy of the appeal was not maintainable. (10). It has next been contended that the Additional Collector No.III, Jaipur City Committed a patent illegality in ordering the cancellation of the patta of the land granted to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat, Sardulpur. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 Suwa Lal has no locus standi to challenge the patta of the land granted in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat. (11). Shri Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, submitted that there is no bar to file the revision petition directly in the Panchayat Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It is urged that the resolution of the Gram Panchayat granting the land to the petitioner is wholly illegal and in case oh this ground this Writ petition is allowed it will result in restoration of an illegal order. (12). It is contended that the land has illegally been allotted to the petitioner by Gram Panchayat. The land is the part of public chowk. (13). (12). It is contended that the land has illegally been allotted to the petitioner by Gram Panchayat. The land is the part of public chowk. (13). Shri Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the revision petition contended that the learned first appellate -Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the order of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court had passed a just and reasonable order after considering the material brought on the record by both the parties and the first appellate Court in the appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC has very very limited power to make interference in that order. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Devi vs. Jang Bahadur (1). Lastly it is contended that the learned trial Court was correct in its approach to grant interim relief as the matter regarding the allotment of patta of the land in dispute in favour of Jagdish was-subjudice before this Court. (14). Shri Hanuman Choudhary, learned counsel for Jagdish, submitted that the order of the learned trial Court was wholly illegal and the first appellate Court has rightly reversed it. It has next been contended that the learned first appellate court as not committed any material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and this Court may not make any interference therein under Section 115 CPC. Otherwise also Shri Hanuman Choudhary submitted that in case the order of the learned first appellate Court is allowed to stand it will not occasion any failure of justice of the petitioner. (15). In writ petition No. 1558 of 2002 Shri Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders passed by learned appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are perverse. Both are non-speaking orders. Either of the authorities has not found any illegality in the action of the Gram Panchayat to allot the land to the petitioner but only to bestow favour to Jagdish part of the land from that patta ordered to be deleted. It is next contended that the respondent No. 4 has no locus standi in the matter. He was not a person objecting that grant. The land has been allotted to Jagdish, he may be son of the respondent No. 4 but nevertheless he has not challenged that resolution of the Gram Panchayat. It is next contended that the respondent No. 4 has no locus standi in the matter. He was not a person objecting that grant. The land has been allotted to Jagdish, he may be son of the respondent No. 4 but nevertheless he has not challenged that resolution of the Gram Panchayat. The part of the land which was ordered to be deleted from the land of the petitioner has been restored to Jagdish though he was not aggrieved of this resolution. Lastly it is contended that the appeal has been filed beyond limitation. (16). Shri Hanuman Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 contended that this writ petition has become infructuous. It is urged that in pursuance of the order o the Panchayat Samiti Dudu and the Additional Collector No. 3, Jaipur the modified patta of the land has been given to the petitioner which he accepted and now nothing substantially survives in this writ petition. (17). On merits it is submitted that any person aggrieved of the allotment of the land in village by Gram Panchayat has locus standi to file the appeal and it was within the limitation. Otherwise also it is hyper technical ground on which the Court may pot interfere with the orders passed by the Panchayat Samiti and the Additional District Collector. In sum and substance in both the writ petitions Shri Hanuman Choudhary has impressed upon the Court that when three authorities have passed orders in favour of his client, this Court may not interfere. (18). I have given my thoughtful. consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. (19). Having gone through the facts of these three matters what it comes out that the fate of other two cases depends on the decision in the writ petition No. 3276199. In case the writ petition No. 3276199 is dismissed, the two other matters may become infructuous and where it is allowed necessity may arise to consider two other matters on merits. Thus first the Writ Petition No. 3276199 is taken. (20). Section 63 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 1994) empowers a Panchayati Raj Institution to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to enter into contracts. Thus first the Writ Petition No. 3276199 is taken. (20). Section 63 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 1994) empowers a Panchayati Raj Institution to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to enter into contracts. However in all cases of acquisition or disposal of immovable property the concerned Panchayati Raj institution shall have to obtain previous approval of the State Government. Chapter IX of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules, 1996) set out elaborate procedure for sale of immovable. properties. Rule 136 of the Rules, 1996 is a provision for vesting of and belonging to a Panchayat, all common, lands and public streets together with pavements, stones and other material thereof as well as all Government lands lying within the Abadi area of the Panchayat Circle. (21). Under sub-Rule (3) of the Rule this vesting and belonging of the land shall be as a trustee for the purpose of the Act, 1994. This sub-rule reads, ``(3) All properties mentioned in sub-rules 1 and 2 shall be under the direction management and control of the Panchayat and shall be held by it as a trustee for the purposes of this Act. (22). Under Rule 137 of the Rules, 1996 the Panchayati Raj Institution (hereinafter referred to as `panchayat) is to maintain a register in Form XX of all buildings and other immovable properties vested in it or placed at its disposal. (23). Rule 140 of the Rules, 1996 defines the `abadi land which means nazul land lying within the inhabited areas of a Panchayat circle which vests or has been vested in or has been placed at the disposal of a panchayat,by or under an order of the State Government. (24). Rule 141 of the Rules, 1996 set out that all the sales of land by a panchayat shall ordinarily be made through auction unless there are special reasons for not doing so. (25). Rule 143 of the Rules, 1996 puts obligations on the panchayat to prepare a list of plots including scattered plots within the Abadi area, keeping in mind the space needed for public streets/roads, drainage and other public purposes. The panchayat is to try to maintain building line, as far as possible, while deciding to auction any scattered plot. Any area of 100 sq. yards or more for residential purposes and 200 sq. The panchayat is to try to maintain building line, as far as possible, while deciding to auction any scattered plot. Any area of 100 sq. yards or more for residential purposes and 200 sq. feet for commercial purposes shall be auctioned as scattered plot. (26). A person desirous of purchasing any abadi land or a strip of 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. Along with this application the applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. Twenty five towards the expenses for preparation of map, if the site map has not been enclosed, with that application. In that case the Secretary of the Panchayat shall prepare a map after site inspection in the presence of the applicant. (27). The Secretary of the Panchayat is to register such application in the register in the Form XXI and open a file. He is to place all such files in the next panchayat meeting for deputing a committee of three panchas for site inspection. Panchas are to inspect the site within 15 days and submit their opinion to the Panchayat as to the desirability of the sale applied for, after taking into consideration the matters enumerated in sub-Rule (3) of Rule 146 of the Rules, 1996. (28). Rule 147 of the Rules, 1996 makes its obligatory for the panchayat to decide provisionally at a meeting whether the proposal should or should not be made. If it decides not to make the sale the application is to be rejected and the fact has to be communicated to the applicant. However, where. the Panchayat decides that the sale should be made it shall publish notice in form XXII inviting objection to the proposed sale within one month from the date of publication in the manner laid down in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 148 of the Rules, 1996. This provision reads. ``(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. (29). ``(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. (29). Where any objection is received in response to that notice, same is to be disposed of by the panchayat after giving to the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Where no objection is received within the stipulated period or objections received have been disposed of the Panchayat shall by resolution, order the auction of sale of land proposed to be sold on a date not earlier than one month from the date of he resolution and at the time and place to be specified. Thereupon a notice of such auction and of the date, time and place is to be proclaimed by a beat of drum/by any other sound and amplifying device and a copy of the auction notice is to be displayed near the site as well as conspicuous places in the village market and on the notice board of the Panchayat. (30). As per Rule 151 of the Rules, 1996 auctions of immovable property,shall be made by an auction committee consisting of, (i) Sarpanch (ii) Up-Sarpanch (iii) Chairman of vigilance committee (iv) One panch belonging to woman/Scheduled Caste/Tribe/OBC as nominated by Panchayat if not represented otherwise (v) Land Revenue Inspector or his absence Patwari who shall be informed well in advance. Three members shall constitute quorum of Auction Committee. (31). The auction as per this Rule is to be held at the site and will not be finalised till end of the days. (32). Rule 152 of the Rules, 1996 is a provision for market price. This Rule casts the duty upon the Auction Committee to ensure that there is free and fair competition among the bidders. It is to keep in mind the prevailing market price of such land. Final bid shall in no case be less than the index rate fixed by the Sub Registrar of the area on the basis of previous sales of land for the purpose of stamp duty. It is to keep in mind the prevailing market price of such land. Final bid shall in no case be less than the index rate fixed by the Sub Registrar of the area on the basis of previous sales of land for the purpose of stamp duty. Vikas Adhikari is to obtain such in4ex rates for every village from the office of the Sub Registrar in the month of April and inform the Panchayat concerned. Bids are to be started from index rates as conveyed by Vikas Adhikari under sub Rule (4) and index rates shall he market price below which no sale shall be finalised by the Panchayat. (33). Rule 154 of the Rules, 1996 makes a provision for confirmation of sale. (34). Rule 156 of the Rules, 1996 makes a provision for transfer of Abadi land by private negotiation. This Rule reads, 156. 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) here any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price; (b) Where there is a trespass or for any other reason to be recorded in writing, Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land; (c) Where it is strip of land as per sub-rules 1 and 2 of Rule 144 and there is only one applicant. (2) In no case such abadi. land, shall be transferred on a rate below index price fixed by Sub-Registrar and conveyed by Vikas Adhikari as prevailing market price for the village. (3) Such market price in a bazaar or commercial area shall not be less than double the price fixed for residential areas. (35). The land in dispute has not been sold by the Panchayat to the petitioner by auction. From the perusal of the record of the writ petition it transpires that the lands has been sold to the petitioner by the Panchayat resorting to this provision. (36). As per Rule 141 of,,the Rules, 1995 the sale of the land by a Panchayat shall ordinarily be made through auction. However if there are special reasons for not doing so, the Panchayat may sell this land by a mode other than auction. (36). As per Rule 141 of,,the Rules, 1995 the sale of the land by a Panchayat shall ordinarily be made through auction. However if there are special reasons for not doing so, the Panchayat may sell this land by a mode other than auction. From the resolution of the Panchayat for sale of this land is dispute to the petitioner it has no where recorded special reasons motto go for auction of this land. This is the first serious illegality which is committed by the Panchayat in the sale of the land in dispute to the petitioner. (37). Where the matter is examined with reference to Rule 156 of the Rules 1996 transfer of any Abadi land by Way of sale by private negotiation is permissible to the Panchayat only in the cases as enumerated in that rule, reproduced above. (38). The Panchayat nowhere has held in the resolution that the petitioner has a plausible claim of title to the land in dispute. The petitioner in the application submitted to the Panchayat for purchase of land in column No. 4 thereof stated that he is in possession thereof for the last fifteen years. In the application the petitioner nowhere stated that he has plausible claim of title to the land in dispute. The petitioner was, as per his own, in possession of the land in dispute for fifteen years. Even it is correct it does not fall under the category of a plausible claim of title to the land. It is an open piece of land. A person having a plausible claim of title to the land, this is also not sufficient for exercise of the powers by the Panchayat in his favour under Rule 156 of the Rules, 1996. In the case of a plausible claim of the title to the land of person the transfer of the land is to be made by auction. The sale by private negotiation is permissible only in case the Panchayat has resolved that an auction thereof may not fetch a reasonable price. That apart the Panchayat has not found any trespass on the land and that the auction would not be convenient mode for disposal thereof. Above that it has not recorded any reason how the auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land. (39). That apart the Panchayat has not found any trespass on the land and that the auction would not be convenient mode for disposal thereof. Above that it has not recorded any reason how the auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land. (39). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 156 of the Rules, 1996 prohibits the Panchayat from transferring Abadi Land on a rate below index price fixed by Sub Registrar and convoyed by Vikas Adhikari as prevailed market price for the village. In the resolution of transfer of this, land to the petitioner the Panchayat nowhere stated that the rate at which the same is sold to the petitioner is not less than the reserved price as fixed by the State Government for the village and conveyed to it by the Vikas Adhikari. (40). Suwa Lal raised an objection against this sale of land in favour of the petitioner on the ground that it will be an encroachment on public chowk and public way. Ladu Ram the reference of which has come, in the resolution of the Gram Panchayat is the father of the petitioner. (41). The Additional Collector recorded a finding of fact after perusing the record of the Panchayat that the patta issued to the petitioner is not legal. In the patta issued to the respondent No.3 towards east of the land the Panchayat has shown public chowk and public way. In the patta of the land granted to the petitioner on 18th of May, 1998 towards west thereof the `baada of respondent No.3 is shown. The Additional Collector held that sale of the land is not made after making the compliance of the provisions of Rules 140 to 157 of the Rules. (42). Shri Hanuman Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to show that the Panchayat has mode the compliance of the Rules 142 to 157 in the case of sale of the land by it to the petitioner. Not only this the Additional Collector found that in the decision of the Gram Panchayat date is not there. The order-sheets are in one ink but dates are put in different ink. On these facts rightly the Additional Collector has observed that it creates serious suspicion in the proceedings. (43). Not only this the Additional Collector found that in the decision of the Gram Panchayat date is not there. The order-sheets are in one ink but dates are put in different ink. On these facts rightly the Additional Collector has observed that it creates serious suspicion in the proceedings. (43). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without availing the remedy of the appeal the non-petitioner No.3 could not have filed the revision petition before the Additional Collector, it is suffice to say that only on this ground the order of the Additional Collector impugned in this petition cannot be quashed and. set, aside. It is a writ of certiorari, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is an extra ordinary equitable discretionary jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Issue of a writ of certiorari in this case meaning thereby allowing this petition and quashing and setting aside the order of the Additional Collector will result in the restoration of the decision of the Gram Panchayat of sale of the land dispute to the petitioner. This decision of the Gram Panchayat is illegal. The consequence of acceptance of the writ petition and quashing and setting aside the order of the Additional Collector would be to restore an illegal order or revival thereof. Under the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1996 the decision of the Gram Panchayat to sell this land in dispute to the petitioner is not legal and the Additional Collector has accepted the revision petition and quashed that order. The reference here fruitfully may have to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, considered the action of the State Government under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad Act, 1959 and came to the conclusion that the Government had no power under Section 72 of the Act to review an order made under Section 62 of the Act but refused to interfere with the order of the High Court on the ground that if the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order and, therefore, the High Court rightly refused to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdictional power. (44). (44). Similar view is expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case on Mohd. Swalleh vs. IIIrd Addl. Dist. Judge, Meerut (3). In that case the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947) was set aside by the District Judge in appeal though the appeal did not lie. The High Court came to the finding that the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid and improper but District Judge had no power to sit in appeal. Still the High Court did not interfere with the order of the District Judge. The order of the High Court was confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court on the ground that though technically the appellant had point regarding jurisdiction of the District Judge but the order of the Prescribed Authority was itself bad, no action can be taken against refusal of the High Court to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (45). The reference here may have to the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of A.M. Mani vs. Kerala State Electricity Board (4) and Patna High Court in the cases of Devendra vs. State (5) and Chintamani Sharan Nath Sahadeo vs. State of Bihar & Others (6). (46). The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Jagan Singh vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan & Anr. (7), held that where setting aside the order of the Tribunal results in revival of illegal order of the lower authority, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may decline to grant any relief. In para No.11 of the judgment, this held, ``As we have already stated above, we do not feel inclined to decide this question in the facts and circumstances of this case; whether Sagruddin, non-petitioner No.2, can be considered as a person aggrieved by the variation in the conditions of the petitioners permit. We have already held above that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, whereby the variation in the conditions of the permit of the petitioner was allowed, was not legal and proper as it had been passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 57, subsections (3), (4) and (5). We have already held above that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, whereby the variation in the conditions of the permit of the petitioner was allowed, was not legal and proper as it had been passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 57, subsections (3), (4) and (5). Assuming for arguments sake, that the non- petitioner No. 2, Sagruddin, had no locus standi to file an appeal or revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated May 27, 1978, the fact remains that the said order of the Regional Transport Authority is .illegal and if we were to allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the result would be that the illegal order of the Regional Transport Authority would be restored. It may be noted that there has been no failure of justice in the present case and we .would be justified in refusing to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. We are of the opinion, that having regard to the facts of the case and the law bearing on the subject, we should decline to interfere. (47). The reference may have to another decision in the case of Himmat Jain vs. State of Rajasthan (8) wherein it is said that it is settled that the mandamus would not go when it appears that it would be futile in its results. It is also settled that the mandamus would not issue to perpetuate an illegality, or to revive another illegal order. (48). The reference may have to recent pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Maharaja Chintamani Nath Shahdeo vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (9) wherein it is held that even if the Member of Board of Revenue had no power to issue direction for giving notice for refund of the excess amount paid, no exception can be taken to the said order if it is found that legally the appellant was paid excess compensation under the Act. Writ petition No. 1558 of 2002 (49). The land in dispute was sold by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner under resolution (Annexure-1) dated 18th February, 1998. Writ petition No. 1558 of 2002 (49). The land in dispute was sold by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner under resolution (Annexure-1) dated 18th February, 1998. The respondent No. 4, the father of the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 3276199 challenged that order of Gram Panchayat by filing the appeal on 26th of June, 2002. That appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation. That appeal was decided by the Panchayat Samiti Dudu on 12th of March, 2001. The appellate, authority has maintained the order of Gram Panchayat but it was modified to the extent Where some benefit has been given in favour of Jagdish. From the land allotted to the petitioner some portion thereof was deleted. Revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed by the Additional Collector, Ill, Jaipur. (50). Having gone through the orders of the Panchayat Samiti and Additional Collector, Jaipur 1 am satisfied that these are wholly perverse, The Panchayat Samiti has not recorded any reason in support of its order. The objections raised by the petitioner against the maintainability of the appeal on the point of limitation as well as locus standi of the respondent No. 4 file the same, were not considered. The order is passed as if the appellate authority is not guided or bound or to look into the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1996. The revisional authority without recording any reason whatsoever, has confirmed that order. This is one ground on which these two orders of the Panchayat Samiti and the Additional Collector cannot be allowed to stand. (51). Section 61 of the Act, 1994 makes provision for appeal from the orders of the Panchayats. Any person who is aggrieved by any order of direction of Panchayat made or issued under this Act or under any Rule or by-law made thereunder may appeal from such order or direction to the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date of such order or direction exclusive of the time requisite for obtaining a copy thereof. (52). The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is unable to explain how the appeal was,within the limitation. Otherwise also, as said earlier, these orders are perverse as no reason whatsoever has been given to reduce the area of the land in dispute granted by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2000 (53). (52). The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is unable to explain how the appeal was,within the limitation. Otherwise also, as said earlier, these orders are perverse as no reason whatsoever has been given to reduce the area of the land in dispute granted by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner. Revision Petition No. 152 of 2000 (53). In the SB Civil Writ Petition - No.3276 of 1999 it is held that the patta granted to the petitioner therein is illegal and order of Additional Collector (III), Jaipur canceling that patta is found to be legal. As a result of which this Order of the learned first Appellate Court cannot be allowed to stand. The matter needs to be considered afresh after keeping in view this order made in the petition No.3276 of 1999. The result of the aforesaid discussion is, 1. The Writ Petition No.3276 of 1999 Jagdish son of Ladu Ram vs. The Additional District Magistrate-II & Ors. fails and the same is dismissed with costs which is quantified to Rs.2900/- (Rs. two thousand); 2. The Writ Petition No.1558 of 2002 Suwa Lal vs. The Additional Collector (III), Jaipur & 3 Ors. succeeds and the same is allowed. The orders of Additional Collector (III), Jaipur and Panchayat Samiti, Dudu are quashed and set aside. 3. The Revision Petition No.152 of 2000 Suwa Lal vs. Ladu Ram & 4 Ors. is partly allowed. The order dated 17.12.1999 of the Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The learned Appellate Court Additional District Judge, Sambhar Lake (Jaipur) is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and decide it afresh in the light of this decision.