The Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the rejection of a revision petition regarding land title disputes between a petitioner and a respondent. The Court found no perversity in the revisional authority's order.
The writ petition and the Stay Petition stood dismissed.
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. 6856/2018
Ramesh Kumar S/o Achal Das, By Caste Jain, aged about 58 years, R/o Latada, Tehsil Bali, District Pali, At Present Resided At 1805, Pushp Vinod-IV, Jaideep Apartment, S.V. Road, Korakendra, Borivali (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Prajapat for Mr. Rajesh Parihar For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
19/08/2019
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Collector, Pali, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interalia, contending that the revisional authority – Additional District Collector Pali, has erred in rejecting petitioner’s revision petition, which was filed under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
The facts appertain are; that the petitioner’s father claimed to have purchased residential plot by way of a registered sale deed dated 14.12.1973 from one Savating S/o Jagga Ji Rabari,
(2 of 3)
[CW-6856/2018]
who was having a ‘Patta’ dated 12.11.1961, issued by the Gram Pachanyat Bali, District Pali in his favour.
The petitioner challenged the action of the Gram Panchayat, which has issued another ‘Patta’ dated 20.06.2002 to Babu Lal (respondent No.1 herein).
The petitioner’s revision petition has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Collector, Pali vide his order dated 05.03.2018, interalia, recording a finding that the Gram Panchayat has followed the procedure provided under the law, including inviting objections from the interested persons, as provided under Rule 156 & 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.
That apart, the revisional authority has found that the neighbourhood given in the contentious ‘Patta’ are not identical to the ‘Patta’ dated 12.11.1961, which has been relied upon by the petitioner as his title.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner’s ‘Patta’ was prior in time and the revisional authority has, therefore, erred in rejecting petitioner’s revision petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the neighbourhood given in petitioner’s ‘Patta’ are not akin to the neighbourhood of the ‘Patta’ granted to respondent No.1. That apart, the proceedings adopted by the Gram Panchayat have not been alleged to be irregular or contrary to the Rules framed in this regard. It cannot be said that the land on which ‘Patta’ has been issued to respondent No.1 is covered by petitioner’s ‘Patta’
This Court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the order impugned dated 05.03.2018, passed by revisional authority.
(3 of 3)
[CW-6856/2018]
The writ petition, thus, fails.
The Stay Petition No. 6834/2018 also stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
3-Ramesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional District Collector erred in dismissing the revision petition challenging the Gram Panchayat's issuance of a new Patta.
Whether the proceedings adopted by the Gram Panchayat were irregular or contrary to the Rules under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Ramesh Kumar
Additional District Collector, District Pali
Babu Lal
Gram Panchayat Latada
Dinesh Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
