Writ petitions challenging orders canceling pattas issued for plots held as public way (Gair Mumkin Rasta). Court upheld revisional authority's findings, dismissing petitions for lack of jurisdictional error.
Writ petitions dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
1. Smt. Sunder Devi & Anr. Vs. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aasind & Ors. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.138/12) 2. Dinesh Tailor Vs. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aasind & Ors. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.140/12)
Dated : 28.1.15
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Mr. Sandeep Sarupara, for the petitioners. Mr. Manish Patel, Additional Government Counsel, for the respondents.
2
Act. The legality of the pattas was questioned on the ground that the plots covered by the said pattas forms part of Gair Mumkin Rasta, comprising khasra no.1899 and the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to issue the pattas of the land, which forms part of the public way. That apart, it was contended that the pattas were issued by the Gram Panchayat without following the procedure laid down under the Rules.
3
land is not being used as public way since time immemorial and therefore, the revisional authority could not have cancelled the pattas on the ground that the land in question forms part of public way. Learned counsel submitted that the road is available at the site and therefore, the allegation that the land forms part of the public way is absolutely in correct.
4
settled that the land forming part of the public way is held by the local authority as trustee and the same cannot be divested for any other use even by the local authority and thus, the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners of the land forming part of the public way have rightly been set aside by the revisional authority. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that before issuing the pattas of the land in question in favour of the petitioners, the procedure laid down under the relevant Rules for allotment of the land was followed by the Gram Panchayat. In this view of the matter, the findings arrived at by the revisional authority as aforesaid, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse.
(SANGEET LODHA),J.
Aditya/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the revisional authority's order cancelling patta issued for land forming part of a public way.
Whether land entered as Gair Mumkin Rasta in revenue record can be divested for individual allotment.
Whether the Gram Panchayat followed the statutory procedure for issuing patta beyond the allowed area limit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Sunder Devi & Anr.
Dinesh Tailor
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aasind & Ors.
SANGEET LODHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
