rajasthan panchayat & nyaya panchayat (general) rule 266 - settlement of land-land not abadi land and within 50 yards of road--held, it cannot be settled under rule 266 and cannot be regularised under rules.;the land in question which is settled under rule 266 of the rules was not an abadi land. if it is not an abadi land, it cannot be settled by the panchayat under rule 266 of the rules. more over, the reguiarisation proceeding alleged to have been taken by the respondent at the instance of the petitioner is of no avail, because the land which comes within 50 yards from the road cannot be regularised in any case.;rule discharged - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. p.k. banerjee, c.j.1. this rule is directed against an order passed by the additional collector, pali under rule 272 of the rajasthan panchayat and nyaya panchayat (general) rules by which the settlement of the land under rule 266 of the aforesaid rules to the petitioner by the panchayat was set aside.2. mr. shrimali on behalf of the petitioner contended that rule 272 of the rules is not applicable in as much as relevant amendment was made long after the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner. the abadi rules were not in existence at that point of time. secondly it is argued by mr. shrimali that the land which was settled, was abadi land or in any case it was used as such for quite a long time.3. mr. parekh on behalf of the respondent however, contends that the land in question is first of all not an abadi land and thereafter u/r 266 of the rules it cannot be settled and secondly it is argued that this land is within 50 yards from the road and it cannot be regularised under the rules.4. it is not necessary for me to go into the first point at all in view of the fact, it is clear that the land in question which is settled under rule 266 of the rules was not an abadi land. if it is not an abadi land, it cannot be settled by the panchayat under rule 266 of the rules. moreover, the regularisation proceeding alleged to have been taken by the respondent at the instance of the petitioner is of no avail, because the land which comes within 50 yards from the road cannot be regularised in any case.5. on these two grounds the rule must stand discharged, which i hereby do. there will be no order as to costs.