Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1725 (RAJ)

Kesha Ram S/o Shri Ramu Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2024-12-19

MUNNURI LAXMAN, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. The present special appeal has been preferred against the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1799/2024 (Kesha Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby while allowing the application preferred by the respondents under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the interim order dated 09.02.2024 passed in favour of the appellants (writ petitioners) has been vacated, though it was observed that the auction proceedings conducted by the Gram Panchayat on 10.07.2023 shall remain subject to the final outcome of the writ proceedings. 2. As the record and the pleaded facts would reveal, the matter pertains to the auction proceedings dated 10.07.2023 in regard to 16 plots falling within the area of Gram Panchayat, Jodhiyasi, District Nagaur, which as claimed by the appellants (writ petitioners) as an Abadi land. 2.1. The bone of contention in the present case is thus, the auction proceedings, as mentioned above, i.e., dated 10.07.2023, as contended by the appellants (writ petitioners), were conducted in an illegal manner, as the same suffers from legal infirmity in the form of violation of Section 148 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, inasmuch as despite a clear mandate in the said provision of law, prior to initiation of the auction proceedings in question, a notice of 30 days is required to be given by the Panchayat to the prospective bidders, in absence whereof, the entire auction proceedings stand vitiated. 2.2. The appellants (writ petitioners) harped upon the fact that despite various correspondence between the Executive Officer/Chief Executive Officer and the Divisional Commissioner, which clearly reflects that the Gram Panchayat was not able to explain its impugned action. The appellants also averred that the entire proceedings in question, as undertaken, suffer from the vice of bias and prejudice, inasmuch as out of total 16 plots, 09 plots have been allotted to one person only, without even taking into due consideration various objections raised by the appellants and other villagers. The appellants also averred that the entire proceedings in question, as undertaken, suffer from the vice of bias and prejudice, inasmuch as out of total 16 plots, 09 plots have been allotted to one person only, without even taking into due consideration various objections raised by the appellants and other villagers. Furthermore, it was also averred that the Divisional Commissioner, at one point of time, has considered the matter and is conscious of the various irregularities and illegalities in the auction process in question, as is apparent on the face of the record, vide order dated 25.01.2024 and thereby directed the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur to cancel the auction in question; however, the Divisional Commissioner, without any cogent or justifiable reason, particularly, even in absence of any subsequent development, changed his decision later on. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 4. This Court observes that vide the impugned order dated 10.05.2024, while allowing the application preferred by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge vacated the interim order dated 09.02.2024, pertaining to the auction proceedings dated 10.07.2023 conducted by the Gram Panchayat Jodhiyasi, District Nagaur, in which it was claimed that the auction of the 16 plots was not in accordance with the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 5. This Court observes that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, while hearing the application of the respondents preferred under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, has dealt with the submissions of the appellants regarding the auction proceedings undertaken on 10.07.2023 and also Rule 148 of the Rules of 1996, which mandates that before initiating the auction proceedings, a notice of 30 days is required to be given to the prospective bidders, and the question was whether such notice was published or not. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants’ objection to the auction regarding the infirmities by Gram Panchayat have rendered the auction unlawful, because it did not conform to the parameters of Rule 148 of the Rules of 1996. Counsel has also harped upon that the records indicate that the Divisional Commissioner was under the orders of the concerned Minister for State of Public Works, Women & Child Development, Government of Rajasthan for passing a particular type of order. 7. Counsel has also harped upon that the records indicate that the Divisional Commissioner was under the orders of the concerned Minister for State of Public Works, Women & Child Development, Government of Rajasthan for passing a particular type of order. 7. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the auction in question was an open auction, wherein anybody could have participated after due notice and it was in pursuance of notice dated 02.05.2023, and the auction held on 10.07.2023 conformed to all the parameters of law including the Rule 148 of the Rules of 1996. 8. On a bare perusal of the record and in the limited adjudication vis-a-vis allowing of the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court was right in allowing the said application because the auction notice was issued on 05.05.2023 and auction proceedings were held on 10.07.2023 which conformed to the parameters of the time as per the law. The satisfaction of the concerned authorities is also on record. No such glaring fact has been brought to the notice of this Court, which could persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order, whereby the learned Single Judge, in the pending writ petition, has allowed the application preferred by the respondents under Article 22(3) of the Constitution of India. 9. Moreover, this Court is satisfied that the learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dated 10.05.2024, while vacating the interim order dated 09.02.2024 has in the interest of justice, kept the auction proceedings dated 10.07.2023, subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition. Thus, after proper hearing on merits, whatever orders shall be passed, no party shall be deprived of the benefit of the litigation and the adjudication. 10. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellant in the instant appeal. 11. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed while uploading the impugned order dated 10.05.2024. All pending applications stand disposed of.