HARI RAM AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners purchased Ahatas No. 89, 90, 91, and 92 situated in 6 L.N.P. in the district of Sri Ganganagar by auction on Oct. 25, 1964 from the Gram Panchayat 6 L.N.P. Ahatas Nos. 89 and 90 were knocked down in favour of the petitioner Hari Ram for a sum of Rs. 60.00 while Ahatas No. 91 and 92 were sold to the petitioner Khyali Ram for a sum of Rs. 58.00. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid auction sales were confirmed by the Gram Panchayat on the very same day and on Oct. 25, 1964 itself the Gram Panchayat executed two sale deeds in respect of the aforesaid lands in favour of the two petitioners. According 10 the petitioners, they made certain constructions offer the aforesaid Ahatas in the year 1965. An officer of the Panrhayat Department appears to have made some complaints before the Addl Collector, Sri Ganganagar who purporting to act under Sec. 75 of the Rajasthan Panchayat, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), set aside the sales made favour of the petitioners by his order dated Aug. 19, 1966. The two petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector before this Court by filing writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. These writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who held by his order dated July 25, 1966 that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to set aside the sales made in favour of the petitioner under Sec. 75 of the Art for two reasons, firstly because the sales were completed long before the order of cancellation of the resolutions was passed by the Additional Collector and, secondly because there was no danger of any obstruction, annoyance or injury to the public by the sale of these plots of land to the petitioners, so as to attract the provisions of Sec. 75 of the Act. This Court by its aforesaid order dated July 25, 1969, therefore, quashed the order pissed by the Additional Collector.

(2.) It appears that subsequently one Hanuman held a revision application before the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar challenging the sales made in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of Rule 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), This revision application was decided by the learned Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated Dec. 4, 1970, after hearing both the parties and the learned Additional Collector set aside the sales made in favour of the two petitioners by the order of the Gram Panchayat dated Oct. 25, 1964 on the ground that the provisions of Rules 260(2), 261 and 262 of the Rules were not complied with The present writ petition has been filed by the two petitioners challenging the afore said order passed by the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated Dec. 4, 1970.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners, dated July 25. 1969 setting aside the order of the Additional Collector dated Aug. 19, 1966 was final and conclusive in the matter and $as the effect of res judicata between the parties. This objection is based on misconception. The Additional Collector has not taken any proceedings now under Sec. 75 of the Act, as the petitioners have alleged in Sub-para (a) of Para 14 of the writ petition. This Court by its earlier order dated July 25, 1969 held that the proceeding under Sec. 75 of the Act taken by the Additional Collector on the earlier occasion, were without jurisdiction and on that ground the order passed by the Additional Collector dated Aug. 19, 1966 was set aside. If the proceedings before the Additional Collector on the earlier occasion under Sec. 75 of the Act were without jurisdiction and they were set aside by this Court then there is no doubt that the Additional Collector could not take any proceedings afresh under Sec. 75 of the Act that matter. But an order passed by this Court in respect of such proceedings which were without jurisdiction, could not have the effect of res judicata of another proceeding which may be taken later on in accordance with the provisions of law. It may be noted that in the writ petition filed in this Court in the earlier occasion it was not the case of any one of the parties that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings whatsoever, in respect of the impugned sales effected by the Gram Panchayat, under any provision of law. Even the provisions of Rule 272 of the Rules were not considered by this Court because the proceedings on the earlier occasion were not taken under Rule 272. The proceedings by the Additional Collector were taken on the earlier occasion under Sec. 75 of the Act and the only question which came up for decision before this Court then was as to whether the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to take recourse to the provisions of Sec. 75 of the Act in that matter. It was held by this Court then that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to take any proceedings under Sec. 75 of the Act and the proceedings taken by the Additional Collector under Sec. 75 were quashed, as being without jurisdiction. In my humble view, the order passed by this Court on July 25, 1969 cannot have the effect of debarring the Additional Collector from taking proceedings under any other provision of law, except under Sec. 75 of the Act, provided such proceedings could be lawfully taken in respect of the sales of plots of land in question.