JUDGMENT 1. :-These appeals are directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 22.7.2002 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1279/2002, whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the orders Annexure-P/11 & P/13 to the writ petition. 2. Th facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 15.2.2002, an advertisement was issued by the Panchayat Samiti, Degana for lease of unspecified land for the period from 1st April, 2002 to 31st March, 2004. On 22nd February, 2002, the advertisement was published in daily News Paper "Dainik Bhaskar". First respondent Kunana Ram was one of the bidders. At the against order dated 22.7.2002 passed by Single Judge in SBCWP No.1279/2002. auction, he gave a bid of Rs. 2,01,000/-. His bid being the highest, was accepted on 22.3.2002. It was the case of the first respondent that on 18.3.2002, he entered into an agreement for procuring agricultural implements and for that purpose, he invested a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/-. It appears that before the alleged investment was made by the first respondent, complaint was filed on 8.3.2002 (Annexure-10) against the acceptance of the bid of first respondent. On 11.3.2002, the Collector Nagaur stayed the effect of the auction and directed status quo to be maintained. On 1:4.2002 the Collector asked the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Degana to hold fresh auction within 15 days (Annexure-11). On the same day viz. 1.4.2002 the Development Officer, Degana issued notice to the first respondent for appearance in the office of the Panchayat Samiti in connection with enquiry regarding the aforesaid complaint (Annexure-12). On 2.4.2002 the Development Officer wrote a letter to the first respondent informing him that fresh auction will be held in which he will be allowed to participate (Annexure-13). 3. The first respondent aggrieved by the decision of the authorities to hold fresh auction in respect of the lease of the land in question filed writ petition, being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1279/2002. The learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition on the ground inter alias that before cancellation of the bid of the first respondent, no notice was given to him. 4. The appellant not being satisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, has filed the instant appeal. 5. One Jeeta Ram, who was intervener before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition has also filed an appeal being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.572/2002. 4. The appellant not being satisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, has filed the instant appeal. 5. One Jeeta Ram, who was intervener before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition has also filed an appeal being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.572/2002. At the outset, we may point out that the appeal filed by Jeeta Ram is not maintainable as he was an intervener before the learned Single Judge and no appeal by intervener is competent. In this view, we are supported by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal DR.(J) No.4827/2002 (1) (Kana Ram Chaudhary Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors.) rendered on 7.1.2003. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find that the auction conducted by the appellants in which the first respondent was the highest bidder, was not in consonance with Rule 173 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter' referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') inasmuch as the auction was not conducted by the auction committee consisting of Chief Executive Officer, Tehsildar and Vikas Adhikari. At this stage, it will be appropriate to notice Rule 173 of the Rules of 1996. Rule 173 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under : "Rule 173. Agricultural lands.-(1) Panchayati Raj Institutions having their own agricultural land, may lease out such lands through public auction. (2) The Panchayats having mango trees or such other orchards shall also lease them out on annual contract basis through public auction. (3) The contracts shall be given only for a period of one year of Kharif and Rabi seasons. (4) Contractor shall vacate the farm and remove the agricultural produce latest by Akshaya Tritya. This fact may be mentioned in the terms of the contract. (5) A portion of the agricultural farm should be kept reserved for agricultural demonstration and social forestry. (6) Auction shall be held on a near 15th of May every year in the presence of an auction committee consisting of Chief Executive Officer, Tehsildar and Vikas Adhikari. (7) While allotting contracts, preference shall be given to Government Departments or organisations, like Rajasthan State Seed Corporation, National Seed Corporation, NAFED etc." 7. (6) Auction shall be held on a near 15th of May every year in the presence of an auction committee consisting of Chief Executive Officer, Tehsildar and Vikas Adhikari. (7) While allotting contracts, preference shall be given to Government Departments or organisations, like Rajasthan State Seed Corporation, National Seed Corporation, NAFED etc." 7. Thus, from a reading of sub-rule (6) of Rule 173 of the Rules of 1996, it is clear that a legally constituted auction committee must consist of Chief Executive Officer, Tehsildar and Vikas Adhikari. In the instant case, the auction was conducted by Vikas Adhikari, Pradhan and Junior Accountant of the Panchayat. Thus, the auction was conducted in contravention of the provisions of Rule 173 of the Rules of 1996. 8. As is apparent from Annexure P/1 dated 15.2.2002, the auction was made for a period of two years. According to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 173 of the Rules of 1996, the auction can be made only for a period of one year for Kharif and Rabi seasons. In the circumstances, therefore, the auction in question also contravenes sub-Rule (3) of Rule 173 of the Rules of 1996. 9. We also find that in the advertisement issued on 15.2.2002, no particulars of the land which was to be auctioned for the purposes of lease, was specified. The authority ought to have given the details of the land including Khasra numbers and the extent of area which was to be leased out. Due to lack of particulars, how would people know as to what they are bargaining for. As a natural consequence thereof they will be hesitant in bidding for the land and in the process bids of proper value will not be forthcoming. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent did not have any control over the acts of the authorities. He submitted that the appellant had no means to know that proper committee for holding the auction was not constituted. Since his client had already invested a sum of Rs. 5,70,000f- for the purpose of working out the lease, he should be allowed to cultivate the land for the lease period of two years. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel but regret our inability to accept the same. In the first place it is difficult to believe that a person will invest a huge sum of Rs. 5,70,000f- for the purpose of working out the lease, he should be allowed to cultivate the land for the lease period of two years. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel but regret our inability to accept the same. In the first place it is difficult to believe that a person will invest a huge sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- in view of the order of the Collector staying the effect of the auction and directing status quo to be maintained. On 11.3.2002 the entire matter relating to the auction was placed in a suspended animation. 11. Learned counsel for first respondent submitted that the appellants did not come to know of the order of the Collector dated 11.3.2002 for quite sometime. According to him, he came to know of the order only on 2.4.2002. The submission does not appeal to us. In a small place information spreads very fast. The order of the Collector would have been the talk of the village. In any case, the first respondent before investing a huge sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- for procuring implements would have made inquiries to ascertain the complete facts, specially when written contract between the parties had not been executed. It seems that the plea of the first respondent relating to investment of Rs. 5,70,000/- for allegedly procuring agricultural implements is a self serving plea and is being pressed into service for creating equity in his favour. No bills have been produced evidencing payment of Rs. 5,70,000/-. Such a huge payment if made, must have been defrayed by means of a cheque or bank draft. No particulars of cheque or bank draft have been mentioned in the writ petition. We are also not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel that no opportunity was granted to the first respondent before cancellation of the bid. In this connection as already pointed out the auction was made by a Committee which did not have the sanction of Ru1e173(6) of the Rules of 1996. No prejudice has been caused to the first respondent for not being provided an opportunity of hearing before the order for fresh auction was made. 12. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. No prejudice has been caused to the first respondent for not being provided an opportunity of hearing before the order for fresh auction was made. 12. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. It will be open to the Panchayat Samiti, Deana to hold fresh auction for a period of one year in accordance with law. It will also be open to Jeeta Ram to withdraw the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- only in case bids higher than Rs. 3,50,000/-are received by the Panchayat Samiti and the bid of Jeeta Ram beyond Rs. 3,50,000/- is not accepted being lower than 'the bid which may be accepted by the Panchayat Samiti. The first respondent will be refunded a sum of Rs. 1,00,500/- as he has worked the bid for one year only. It will be open to the first respondent to harvest the crop upto 4th May, 2003, whereafter he shall vacate the land.Appeals Disposed Of *******