JUDGMENT 1. - The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the Judgment dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Additional District Collector, Nohar ('the Collector'), whereby the Revision Petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been allowed and Patta Nos. 106, 107 and 108 dated 21.12.2004 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Jogiwala have been cancelled. 2. The land in question admeasuring 1 Bigha 4 Biswa situated at Chak No. 11 JGW Khasra No. 250 was recorded as public land int he revenue records. The Gram Panchayat, Jogiwala during the campaign 'Prashashan Gaon ke Sangh' submitted an application for getting the land in question converted for residential purpose, which was converted as residential by Order dated 1.1.2002. It is claimed that in the meeting of Gram Panchayat dated 20.8.2004, a proposal to placed to bifurcate the converted land into plots and auction the same; in the meeting, it was decided that the land may be birfurcated into 6 plots; 3 plots may be reserved for Panchayat Bhawan, Anganwari Bhawan and Veterinary Hospital respectively and remaining 3 plots be put to auction. It is further claimed that pursuant to the above resolution, a notice (Annexure 5) was issued by the Gram Panchayat on 20.9.2004 seeking objections regarding the proposed auction, wherein no objections were received. In meeting dated 20.10.2004, it was decided by the Gram Panchayat to hold the auction on the next day i.e. 21.10.2004 and on 21.10.2004, the plots were auctioned to the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 5,300/- Rs. 5,100/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively; where after, the Pattas for the said plots were issued on 20.12.2004. 3. The present proceedings under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act') were initiated by Respondents No. 3 and 4, wherein it was, inter alia, contended that the land in question has been auctioned in a clandestine manner. The mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules have not been followed and, therefore, the patta issued in favour of the petitioners may be cancelled. Along with Revision Petition, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed, it was claimed that the applicants were not aware of the issuance of Pattas, when the plots were sought to be utilised, then the applicants came to know about the same and, therefore, prayed for condoning the delay. 4. Along with Revision Petition, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed, it was claimed that the applicants were not aware of the issuance of Pattas, when the plots were sought to be utilised, then the applicants came to know about the same and, therefore, prayed for condoning the delay. 4. The Revision and the application for condonation were opposed by the petitioners. 5. The Collector vide his Order dated 28.11.2014 came to the conclusion that the delay in filing the Revision deserved to be condoned. Where after on considering the matter on merits, he came to the conclusion that the notice issued on 20.9.2004 seeking objections regarding auction of the land in question, was not recorded in the dispatch register; the place and date of its auction was not indicated; the notice for auction for 21.10.2004 was also not in the dispatch register and the auction has been shown to have been done in the presence of the persons, to whom the land in question has been auctioned and on account of the fact that the persons present were the only bidders clearly makes the entire auction proceedings as doubtful and collusive and, therefore, came to the conclusion that the respondents failed to act in accordance with the Act and the Rules and, consequently set aside the pattas and directed the Gram Panchayat to take proceedings in accordance with the procedure under the Rules. 6. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Collector was not justified in accepting the Revision Petition filed by the respondents as the same was filed mala fide after inordinate delay and the auction proceedings had taken place perfectly in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Reference has been made to the minutes of the meeting of Gram Panchayat filed as Annexures 6 and 7. It is further submitted*that the petitioners belong to the lower strata of the Society and, therefore, a lenient view was required to be taken. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record. 8. It is further submitted*that the petitioners belong to the lower strata of the Society and, therefore, a lenient view was required to be taken. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record. 8. From the material available on record, it is apparent that once the land in question was permitted to be converted from public land into residential, the proceedings for putting the land to use was initiated, wherein on 20.8.2004, it was purportedly decided that 6 plots be carved out and 3 plots be used for public purposes and 3 plots be auctioned; where after on 5.9.2004, the committee of 3 Panchas was formed for doing the needful; a notice dated 20.9.2004 was issued by the Gram Panchayat, inter alia, indicating that the plots No. 1,2 and 3 admeasuring 50 x 60 feet each would be auctioned and plots No. 4, 5 and 6 would be reserved for Panchayat Bhawan, Anganwari Bhawan and Veterinary Hospital and objections were invited. Where after on 20.10.2004, in the purported meeting it was noticed that no objections were received and, therefore, an open auction qua Plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be held on the site on 21.10.2004 i.e. the next day of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Where after it is claimed that vide Annexure 6, the auction notice was issued regarding holding of the auction on 21.10.2004 and as noticed therein before, the auction proceedings were allegedly held at the site and the plots were auctioned to the 3 petitioners on their being allegedly highest bidders for a sum of Rs. 5,300/-, Rs. 5,100/- and Rs. 5,000/- for Plots No. 1,2 and 3 respectively. 9. The entire procedure undertaken by the Gram Panchayat from the note-sheets produced by the petitioners as Annexures 6 and 7 clearly reflect that the procedure to deal with the land has been undertaken in a wholly clandestine and irregular manner. The copies of the note-sheets indicated that the date qua alleged meeting dated 21.10.2004 has been indicated as 21.10.2006 and qua meeting dated 1.11.2004 is indicated as 1.11.2006. Further qua the note-sheet dated 21.10.2004, there is no next date indicated in the note-sheet. 10. The copies of the note-sheets indicated that the date qua alleged meeting dated 21.10.2004 has been indicated as 21.10.2006 and qua meeting dated 1.11.2004 is indicated as 1.11.2006. Further qua the note-sheet dated 21.10.2004, there is no next date indicated in the note-sheet. 10. The most crucial aspect of the matter is that the Gram Panchayat in its purported meeting dated 20.10.2004 decided that as no objections were received, the Plots No. 1,2 and 3 be auctioned and fixed the auction on the next date itself. 11. Provisions of Rule 150 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules') provided as under:- "Rule 150. Auction of the land-(1) If no objection is received under Rule 148 within one month, or if all objections received have been disposed of under Rule 149, the Panchayat shall be resolution order the auction of the land proposed to be sold on a date, not earlier then one month from the date of the resolution and at the time and place to be specified -. [Provided that during the period 24.2.2005 to 23.3.2005 the date of auction after resolution of Panchayat will be seven days in place of one month.] (2) Thereupon a notice of such auction, and of the date, time and place specified in sub-rule (1) shall be proclaimed by a beat of drum/by any other sound amplifying device, and copy of auction notice shall be displayed near the site as well as conspicuous places in the village market and on the notice board of the Panchayat." [Emphasis Supplied] 12. A bare look at the provision reveals that it is required of the Panchayat to 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'. 13. However, as noticed hereinbefore on 20.10.2004, the Panchayat allegedly decided to hold the auction on next day itself, which is ex facie contrary to Rule 150 (supra). The said aspect coupled with the finding of the Collector that qua the notice dated 20.9.2004 seeking objections under Rule 148 of the Rules and its publication and publication of auction notice, no dispatch record was available and that the auction proceedings were held in a clandestine manner, are fully established. 14. The said aspect coupled with the finding of the Collector that qua the notice dated 20.9.2004 seeking objections under Rule 148 of the Rules and its publication and publication of auction notice, no dispatch record was available and that the auction proceedings were held in a clandestine manner, are fully established. 14. The Collector in the impugned order, inter alia, held as under: " mDr Hkw[k.M ij iapk;r Hkou vkaxuokM+h Hkou o i'kw fpfdRlky; ds fy, vkjf{kr fd;s tkus dk izLrko fnukad 20-8-2004 j[ks tkus ij Hkw[k.M ij dqy 6 Hkw[k.M dze la[;k 1 ls 6 cuk, x,] ftlesa ls Hkw[k.M la[;k 4] 5 o 6 dks mDr iz;kstukFkZ vkjf{kr j[krs gq, 'ks"k Hkw[k.M la[;k 1 ls 3 dks lkoZtfud uhykeh }kjk fodz; fd, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA fuxjkuh v/khu iV~Vk la[;k 106] 107 o 108 fnukad 20-12-2004 ls lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r dh i=koyh esa miyC/k nLrkostkr fp=izfr uD'kk ls ;g Li"V gS fd mDr Hkw[k.M Hkknjk&fglkj jksM ij fLFkr gSA xzke iapk;r }kjk fnukad 20-9-2004 dks IykV uEcj 1] 2 o 3 dh ekSds ij uhykeh fd, tkus gsrq uksfVl vkifRr izLrqr djus gsrq ,d ekg dk volj fn;k x;k gSA uksfVl xzke iapk;r ds fMLisp jftLVj esa ntZ ugha gSA uksfVl pLik fdl LFkku o fnukad dks fd;k x;k gS] vafdr ugha gSA fnukad 20-10-2004 }kjk uhykeh lwpuk tkjh dj fnukad 21-10-2014 dks Hkw[k.Mksa dh lkoZtfud uhykeh tkjh dh xbZ gS rFkk mDr lwpuk la[;k Hkh iapk;r }kjk fMLisp ugha dh xbZ gS rFkk fnukad 21-10-2004 dks Hkw[k.M la[;k 1 ls 3 dh lkoZtfud :i ls uhykeh fd;k tkuk vafdr gSA bl izdkj fnukad 20-9-2004 dks tkjh uksfVl dh pLiknaxh jkeir] Jh ikyflag] nbZjke] euhjke] n'kehnkl] lR;iky dh ekStwnxh esa fd;k tkuk o fnukad 20-10-2004 dks uhykeh lwpuk nsbZjke] euhjke] lR;iky] n'kehjke] thrkjke iap jks'kuh] jruyky] jkeir dh ekStwnxh esa pLiknaxh djuk crk;k gS rFkk IykV uEcj 1] 2 o 3 dh uhykeh fd, tkus gsrq IykV uEcj 1 gsrq vekur jkf'k 1- tqxrhjke ukbZ] 2- lR;iky] 3 jkeir] 4- n'kehjke o 5- euhjke o IykV uEcj 2 ds fy, Hkh ;gh O;fDr ,oa IykV uEcj 3 ds fy, Hkh nsbZjke ds vykok bUgha O;fDr;ksa ds }kjk tek djokbZ xbZ gS ,oa bUgha ds e/; lkoZtfud uhykeh cqykbZ tkdj Hkw[k.M la[;k 1 jkeir iq= gjQwy] Hkw[k.M la[;k 2 Jh n'kehjke iq= jkeflag Hkw[k.M] Hkw[k.M la[;k 3 lriky iq= lksguyky ds i{k esa dze'k% 5]300@& :i;s] 5]100@& :i;s o 5]000@& :i;s esa fodz; dj iV~Vs tkjh fd;ss x;s gSaA bl izdkj fnukad 20-9-2004 fnukad 20-10-2004] dks tkjh lwpuk o uhykeh esa lokZf/kd cksyh nsgUnk] ,d gh O;fDr gS] blls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd Hkw[k.Mksa dh lkoZtfud uhykeh dh dk;Zokgh iwoZ ;kstukc) rjhds ls lansgkLin o feyhHkxr dj yh tkuh izrhr gksrh gSA tgka rd lkoZtfud iz;kstukFkZ vkjf{kr Hkwfe dk xzke iapk;r dks uhykeh gsrq izLrkfor djus dk vf/kdkj Fkk ;k ugha dk iz'u gSA mDr leLr Hkwfe iwoZ esa lkoZtfud Hkwfe gM~MkjksMh gsrq vkjf{kr FkhA izHkkjh vf/kdkjh] lgk;d dysDVj Hkknjk us iz'kklu ds lax vfHk;ku dsEi esa fnukad 21-5-2002 dks vkcknh Hkwfe esa ifjofrZr dh xbZ gS] og fdl mn~ns'; gsrq dh Fkh] tks /;ku esa j[kk tkuk pkfg, Fkk] tks i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA tgka rd Hkw[k.Mksa dk fu;ekuqlkj izfdz;k ds rgr uhyke fd, tkus dk iz'u gSA izFke n`"V;k uhykeh dk;Zokgh lansgkLin gksuk izrhr gksrh gSA jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e] 1996 dh /kkjk 161 ( 2 ) ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr Hkwfe fodz; dh tk ldrh Fkh ;k ugha] dh tkap ugha dh tkuh ikbZ tkrh gSA Hkw[k.M uhykeh dh dk;Zokgh ljiap xzke iapk;r }kjk dh tkjh ik;h tkrh gSA jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt vf/kfu;e] 1996 dh /kkjk 150 ds rgr lkoZtfud uhykeh dh lwpuk dk le; ,d ekg fn;k x;k gS] tcfd iapk;r }kjk fnukad 20-10-2004 dks tkjh dj fnukad 21-10-2004 dks vxys fnu gh dh xbZ gSA /kkjk 151 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr uhykeh] uhykeh lfefr }kjk dh tkuh pkfg, FkhA i=koyh ij ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha gS] ftlls ;g fl) gks fd uhykeh dh dk;Zokgh gsrq uhykeh lfefr ds lnL;ksa dks lwfpr fd;k x;k gS vkSj uhykeh dh dk;Zokgh lfefr }kjk dh xbZ gSA /kkjk 152 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr lEcfU/kr mi iath;d dk;kZy; ls fo|eku cktkj dher ugha yh xbZ gSA ftlls ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk fd cktkj dher fdruh FkhA pwafd dkuwuu cktkj dher ls gh] vkxs cksyh yxkbZ tk ldrh gSA /kkjk 154 ds rgr fodz; dk vuqeksnu djok;k ;k ugha ;k lk{; Hkh i=koyh ij ekStwn gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA " 15. In view of the above, the finding of the Collector regarding the violation of the mandatory Rules and the action of the Gram Panchayat in auctioning the plots in petitioners' favour cannot be sustained. 16. So far as the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners regarding the delay is concerned, besides the fact that the record of the case clearly reveals clandestine action on part of the Gram Panchayat and regarding which, there cannot be any limitation as the fraud vitiates everything. Further, the applicants before the Collector clearly averred that when the land in question was sought to be utilised then they became aware about the issuance of Pattas for which the Revision seeking cancellation of Pattas was filed and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Collector committed any error in condoning the delay.In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the Writ Petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******