Petitioner sought writ under Article 226 challenging a patta issued to respondents by Gram Panchayat under Rule 157 of 1996 Rules. Court held District Collector did not commit illegality as statutory procedure was followed, dismissing the writ petition.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 461 / 2017
Lalit Kumar Son of Shri Laxmi Chand, by Caste Oswal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident of Kundal Ki Baas, Siwana, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Richin Surana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
04/10/2017
The defect No.2 pointed out by the Registry is waived.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved with the order dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure-10) passed by the District Collector, Barmer Camp Court, Siwana (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) in Revision Petition No.01/2011, whereby the revisional court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1994’).
By way of the aforementioned revision petition, the
(2 of 5)
[cW-461/2017]
petitioner has challenged the validity of Patta No.41 dated 20.07.2009 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the patta in question’) issued by the Gram Panchayat, Siwana in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 under Rule 157(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the revisional court has erred in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner without appreciating that the patta in question issued in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 was void ab initio as those respondents have failed to prove before the Gram Panchayat Siwana that they are in possession of the plot from so many years, for which the patta in question has been issued.
It is contended that for the purpose of issuance of residential patta under Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996, it has to be proved by the applicant that he/she has constructed a house over the said plot and is residing in the said house from last so many years. It is submitted that from the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the revision petition, filed by the petitioner before the revisional court, it is clear that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were not in possession of the plot from long time and they have purchased the possession of it recently from one Babulal. It is argued that in view of the admission of respondent Nos.5 and 6, it is clear that no residential patta can be issued in their favour by the Gram Panchayat, Siwana under Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the revisional court of dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be set aside and the patta in question issued in favour of the
(3 of 5)
[cW-461/2017]
respondent Nos.5 and 6 is also liable to be cancelled.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the perusal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the revisional court, it appears that the petitioner has challenged the validity of the patta in question on the following grounds :-
(4 of 5)
[cW-461/2017]
It is interesting to note that before the revisional court the petitioner has claimed that the disputed land, for which the patta in question was issued by the Gram Panchayt, Siwana in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6, was the ancestral land of his grandfather Shivlal Ji, however, in the writ petition the petitioner has placed reliance on the patta in question alleged to have been issued by the Municipal Board, Siwana way back in the year 1983 in favour of his grandfather Shivlal Ji.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the disputed land, for which the patta in question has been issued in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 by the Gram Panchayat, Siwana, was allotted to the grandfather of the petitioner by the Municipal Board, Siwana in the year 1983. It is noticed that the above claim of the petitioner is contrary to the stand taken by him before the revisional court, wherein a specific claim was made that the disputed land was ancestral land of his grandfather.
Be that as it may, from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional court, it is clear that the revisioinal court has carefully scrutinized the record of the Gram Panchayat, Siwana and a specific finding is given that before issuance of the patta in question in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6, the Gram Panchayat, Siwana has followed the procedure laid down under the Rules of 1996. It is observed that after receiving of the application from the respondent Nos.5 and 6, the Gram Panchayat, Siwana constituted a committee of Ward Panchas for conducting site inspection. After receiving of the report from the Ward Panchas, a provisional decision was taken to dispose of the
(5 of 5)
[cW-461/2017]
land and thereafter notice for inviting objections from public at large was issued, however, no objections were received and the Gram Panchayat, Siwana decided to issue residential patta in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Having taken into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the Gram Panchayat, Siwana has issued patta in question in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6, after following the procedure laid down under the Rules of 1996, I am of the opinion that the District Collector, Barmer Camp Court, Siwana has not committed any illegality in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure-10). Hence, no interference is called for.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Abhishek Kumar SS/S.No.1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Gram Panchayat committed an illegality by issuing a residential patta after following the procedure under the Rules of 1996 despite the petitioner's claim of prior ownership.
Whether the District Collector erred in dismissing the revision petition challenging the validity of the patta.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Lalit Kumar
State of Rajasthan
District Collector, Barmer
Tehsildar, Siwana
Gram Panchayat Siwana
Malam Singh
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
