ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 16.6.16 passed by the District Collector, Pali, whereby a patta of a plot issued in his favour by Gram Panchayat, Sawalta, stands cancelled in exercise of the power conferred under Section 97 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act"). 2. Vide order dated 27.1.17 passed by this court, the petitioner was directed to place on record the copy of the resolution no.3/10 adopted by the Gram Panchayat, Sawalta in its meeting held on 27.12.13 in pursuance whereof the patta of the disputed land was issued in his favour. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that despite efforts being made, the petitioner has not been able to obtain the copy of the resolution adopted by Gram Panchayat and therefore, it is not possible to produce the copy thereof on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. The legality of the patta of a plot measuring 10,800 sq. ft. issued by Gram Panchayat, Sawalta in favour of the petitioner was questioned by the second respondent by way of revision petition under Section 97 of the Act before the District Collector, Pali. The second respondent claimed that he is in possession of a house constructed over the disputed plot; however, patta of the plot in question has been issued by Gram Panchayat without taking any proceedings under the relevant rules in clandestine manner in favour of the petitioner herein. 6. After due consideration, the revisional authority arrived at the finding that no proceedings alleged to have been taken by the Gram Panchayat while issuing patta of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner is available with the Gram Panchayat, Sawalta. The court observed that from perusal of the patta it is not clear that whether the patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner pursuant to auction of the plot or by regularising the ancestral possession thereon. Accordingly, the patta issued stands set aside by the order impugned. 7. The court observed that from perusal of the patta it is not clear that whether the patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner pursuant to auction of the plot or by regularising the ancestral possession thereon. Accordingly, the patta issued stands set aside by the order impugned. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that patta was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat after following the procedure laid down and thus,the revisional authority has erred in setting aside the patta on account of non availability of the record of proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submitted that the revisional authority has erred in ignoring the pendency of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction preferred by the petitioner against the second respondent before the Civil Judge (JD), Desuri. 8. A perusal of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner reveals that a huge plot measuring 10800 sq. ft. has been issued in favour of the petitioner by charging a sum of Rs.200/- which is shown to be the market price of the plot assessed by way of private negotiation. 9. The transfer of the land in Panchayat Area by private negotiation is governed by Rule 156 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"), which reads as under: "Rule 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) Where 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." 10. (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." 10. A bare perusal of Rule 156 of the Rules, makes it abundantly clear that for transfer of the land by private negotiation, there are two conditions precedent; firstly, the person asking for the sale of land by private negotiation must have plausible claim of title to the land and secondly, the Panchayat must come to a definite conclusion that the land claimed to be sold by private negotiation may not fetch reasonable price if the same is put to auction. It goes without saying that a plausible claim of title to the land pre supposes the existence of some material on record to show that the person asking for the patta has acquired a reasonable claim of title under the law though he may not be in position to establish his clear title. Further, the proceedings must reflect that having considered the matter in its entirety and objectivity the Panchayat was satisfied that if the land sought to be sold by private negotiation is put to auction, the same may not fetch reasonable price. 11. There is nothing on record suggesting that any proceedings for the sale of the land by private negotiation was ever taken by the Gram Panchayat. Nothing is disclosed as to since when the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land. Thus, in absence of any material on record about the long possession of the petitioner over the land in question so as to give rise to plausible claim of title, the decision taken by the Panchayat to straight away issue patta in favour of the petitioner presuming the plausible claim of title of the petitioner, is ex facie contrary to the provisions of the relevant Rules. 12. It is significant to note that as per Rule 156(2) of the Rules, the Panchayat is not empowered to transfer Abadi land by private negotiation on a rate below index price fixed by Sub Registrar and conveyed by Vikas Adhikaris as prevailing market price of the village. 12. It is significant to note that as per Rule 156(2) of the Rules, the Panchayat is not empowered to transfer Abadi land by private negotiation on a rate below index price fixed by Sub Registrar and conveyed by Vikas Adhikaris as prevailing market price of the village. Suffice it to say that before transferring the land by private negotiation and issuing pattas, the Gram Panchayat was under an obligation to ascertain the prevailing market price so as to determine the amount to be charged from the applicants against the transfer of the Abadi land in terms of Rule 156 of the Rules. It is apparent on the face of record that no such exercise was ever taken by the Gram Panchayat and the huge land measuring 10,800 sq. ft. has been transferred in favour of the petitioner for a throw away price i.e. Rs.200/- which comes to .018 paisa per sq. ft. Thus, it is a glaring case of grabbing the public land by the land grabber with encouragement and support by the office bearers of Gram Panchayat. 13. Coming to the question of regularisation of possession of old house, there is nothing on record suggesting that there existed old house over the plot in question, which could have been regularised by the Gram Panchayat invoking the power under Rule 157 of the Rules. Moreover, the patta issued is not suggestive of the fact that any such proceedings for regularisation of possession of old house was ever taken by the Gram Panchayat. 14. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the revisional authority setting aside the patta issued in favour of the petitioner does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.