Dismissed

Madan Lal and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2023CW/9372/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench allowed the respondent private respondents to retain their land patta. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as they did not apply for the patta themselves and produced no evidence that the allottee was ineligible. The petition was dismissed due to delay and lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

Stay applications and all other pending applications stood dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.

Madan Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8067/2016

Madan Lal And Ors.

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors.

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5386/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5387/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5388/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5389/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7112/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7116/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7119/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7120/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7231/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7237/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7238/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7241/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7243/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7245/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7246/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7256/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8066/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8068/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8071/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8073/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8074/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8076/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8078/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9060/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9061/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9062/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9063/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9297/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9298/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9299/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9301/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9372/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9373/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9382/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9383/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9384/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9385/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9386/2016
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9387/2016

(2 of 10)

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

[CW-8067/2016]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9897/2016 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9967/2016 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2926/2018 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2928/2018 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3155/2018 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3165/2018 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3167/2018 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3357/2018

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mudit Vaishnav Mr. Manish Tak

¶16

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶17

Order

¶18

Reserved on:16/10/2023

¶19

Reserved on:03/11/2023

¶20

(1) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

¶21

“A. That order dated 8-2-2016 (Annexure-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside and cancel the Patta (Annexure4) issued by the respondent No.3.”

¶22

(2) The facts appertain are that the respondent No.4 – Dheer Singh filed an application (Annex.1) before the Gram Panchayat, Chohtan for allotment of patta under the category of weaker section as landless persons. The respondent No.3, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chohtan, after preparing the mauka report and complying the procedure, resolved to allot patta in favour of respondent No.4 under Rule 158 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1996’) vide Resolution No.1(5) dated 20.08.2009 (Annex.3) and issued patta No.2633 (Annex.4) on 10.12.2009.

(3 of 10)

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

[CW-8067/2016]

(3) Aggrieved against the issuance of patta (Annex.4), the petitioner preferred a revision petition for cancellation of the same before the respondent No.2 – District Collector, Barmer, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2016 (Annex.7).

¶27

(4) Being dissatisfied with the order dated 08.02.2016 (Annex.7), the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that:

¶28

(a) the respondent No.2, while deciding the revision petition, did not consider the fact that the respondent No.4 was having an old house in village Chohtan where he is residing with his family, which the petitioner had clearly mentioned in his revision petition; (b) the respondent No.2 also did not consider the documents placed by the petitioner on record showing that the respondent No.4 did not belong to weaker section and that he was not a landless person;

¶29

(c) the respondent No.2 has committed grave error of law while granting patta under Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under:-

¶30

“ 158. Allotment of lands to weaker sections. -

¶31

(1) The Panchayat may allot Abadi land up to 300 sq. yards in village Abadis at concessional rate to members of Scheduled Caste, scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, village artisans, landless persons dependent on wage labour, IRDP selected families, Handicapped, Nomatic Tribes, Gadia Lohar who do not own house sites/house and also to flood victims whose house have been washed away or the house sites have been rendered unfit for future habitation due to floods and patta of such land may be issued in Form XXIII-C.”

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

[CW-8067/2016]

(4 of 10)

From the perusal of the provision aforesaid it is clear that the panchayat may allot abadi land up to 300 sq. yards in village abadis at concessional rate to members of Scheduled Caste, scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, village artisans, landless persons dependent on wage labour, IRDP selected families, Handicapped, Nomatic Tribes, Gadia Lohar who do not own house sites/house and also to flood victims whose house have been washed away or the house sites have been rendered unfit for future habitation due to floods and the respondent No.4 did not fall under any of the category mentioned above. But, the respondent No.2 did not consider this aspect of the matter and granted patta in a cursory manner;

¶36

(d) the respondent No.2 also did not consider the fact that previously, a Standing Committee had passed a resolution on 20.08.2002 for auctioning the land and thereafter the subsequent Committee cannot recall the said resolution without following the procedure; and

¶37

(e) the Gram Panchayat, while granting patta in question, has not observed the provisions of Section 142 of the Rules 1996, which provides that the land can be sold only through auction. (6) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 submitted that:

¶38

(a) the patta in question has been issued while observing the rules of law and the same does not suffer from any vice or infirmity;

(5 of 10)

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

[CW-8067/2016]

(b) the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches as the patta in question was issued in the year 2009, whereas the same was challenged by filing revision petition in the year 2012 and the said delay was not explained;

¶43

(c) the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate his argument with regard to eligibility of the respondent No.4, whereas the authorities concerned had granted patta after following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules of 1996; and

¶44

(d) the patta in question was granted under Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 as the respondent No.4 belongs to Backward Classes and is a landless person and hence, there is no need to follow the procedure laid down in Rules 142 of the Rules of 1996.

¶45

(7) Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that: (a) the Gram Panchayat, before issuing patta in favour of the respondent No.4, followed the procedure and invited objections and when no objections were received within the time stipulated, the Gram Panchayat proceeded to issue patta in favour of the respondent No.4, while observing all the rules of law;

¶46

(b) the petitioner has not placed any material on record showing that the respondent No.4 is not a landless person or that he is ineligible to be granted the patta. The District Collector, while considering all the aspects of the matter, recorded the finding of fact in the matter that the respondent No.4 is entitled to have patta;

¶47

(c) the petitioner had every opportunity to raise objections in regard to issuance of the patta but no objections were raised and

(6 of 10)

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

[CW-8067/2016]

after issuance of patta in 2009, the revision petition was preferred in the year 2016 and that too without giving explanation for such delay;

¶52

(d) the petitioner has utterly failed to substantiate his contention that the Gram Panchayat has committed any irregularity or violated any of the Rules while issuing patta in question to the respondent No.4 and the District Collector also considered all the aspects of the matter and dismissed the revision petition, which order deserves to be upheld; and

¶53

(e) that the petitioner has only made bald allegations against the respondent No.4 that he was having his own house or he was otherwise not entitled for the allotment and the Gram Panchayat, while considering all the documents and observing the procedure, granted patta and the District Collector also considered all the material available on record and dismissed the revision petition and rightly so.

¶54

(8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶55

(9) The petitioner has failed to demonstrate before this Court his locus standi as the petitioner has not moved an application before the Gram Panchayat, Chohatan for allotment of patta under the category of Weaker Section and neither has claimed himself to be a member of Schedule Caste, Scavengers, Schedule Tribes, Backward Classes, Village Artisans, Landless persons dependent on wage, Labour, IRDP selected families, Handicapped, Nomadic Tribes, Gadia Lohar who did not own house sites/house and neither flood victims whose house has been washed away or the

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

[CW-8067/2016]

(7 of 10)

house sites has been rendered unfit for future habitation due to floods. The petitioner has come before this Court in order to give a challenge to the patta that have been allotted in favour of the private respondents, who had duly applied before the Gram Panchayat, Chohatan for the allotment of patta under the category of Weaker Section and land less person and thus the petitioner has failed to show the rights that would be prejudiced if the respondents have allotted the patta in favour of the private respondents while invoking the Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996. Further the documents that have been placed by the petitioner in the writ petition shows that the petitioner has not placed on record even a single document to show that the private respondents are already having the patta in their favour, and are not resident of village Chouhtan or are having their own dwelling house.

¶60

(10) A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 08.02.2016 reflects that the petitioner even in the revision filed under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1996 before the District Collector, Barmer has not placed any document to establish that private respondents were already having a patta in their favour, or were not resident of village Chouhtan or were already having dwelling house. The petitioner has also failed to demonstrate before this Court that the respondent did not adhere to the relevant provisions of law while allotting the patta in favour of the private respondents.

¶61

(11) The District Collector, Barmer, after examining record placed before him, has observed in his order dated 08.02.2016 that the

(8 of 10)

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

[CW-8067/2016]

Gram Panchayat had duly issued resolution dated 05.06.2009 for the site inspection report while adhering to provision of Rule 146 and the same is reproduced as under:-

¶66

" 146. Site inspection. - (1) Secretary shall register such application in a register in Form XXI and open a file.

¶67

(2) Secretary shall lay all such pending files in the next Panchayat meeting for deputing a committee of three panchas for site inspection.

¶68

(3) Panchas shall inspect the site within 15 days and submit their opinion to the Panchayat as to the desirability of the sale applied for, after taking into consideration the following matters, namely: -

¶69

(a) Whether the sale applied for will affect the facilities for going and coming enjoyed by the villagers;

¶70

(b) Whether such sale will affect the rights of easements owned by other persons;

¶71

¶72

(d) The names of adjoining residents desirous of buying such land,

¶73

(e) Such other matters as may appear to be relevant."

¶74

The Gram Panchayat thereafter issued resolution dated 20.08.2009 in compliance of Rule 148 and issued a notice inviting objections for the proposed allotment of pattas. However, the respondent did not recieve any objections. Rule 148 is reproduced as under:-

¶75

" 148. Issue and publication of notice. - (1) If the Panchayat provisionally decides that the sale should be made, it shall publish a notice in Form XXII inviting objections to the proposed sale with one month from the date of publication on the manner laid down in Sub-rule (2).

(9 of 10)

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

[CW-8067/2016]

Provided that during the period 24.2.2005 to 23.3.2005 period of inviting objections will be seven days in place of one month.

¶80

Provided that during the Rajasv abhiyan or Prashasan Gaon ke sang abhiyan or any other abhiyan organised by order of the State Government for sale of land and Patta Vitran], period of inviting objections shall be seven days in place of one month.

¶81

(2) The notice referred to in Sub-rule (1) shall be prepared in duplicate and one copy thereof shall be affixed to a conspicuous place on the proposed to be sold, the other copy being returned to the Panchayat Office after obtaining the signatures of at-least two respectable persons of the locality thereon, in token of such affixation."

¶82

(12) The petitioners also did not file objections in respect to allotment of the plots in dispute and thus vide resolution dated 20.08.2009, the respondents took a decision for issuing the patta while invoking the Rule 158 (2) (g) of the Rules of 1996. The patta were duly issued in favour of the private respondents in the year 2009 and the revision was preferred by the petitioner in the year 2012 i.e. after a delay of three years and the petitioner has failed to give a plausible reason for the said delay. It is also important to note that the petitioner has not assigned any plausible reason for not filing the objection even when he had an opportunity to do so. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the District Collector ought to have decided each case separately as each case was having different set of facts is having no force, as the petitioners have not placed on record any document in respect to their submission in order to show that

[2023:RJ-JD:36501]

[CW-8067/2016]

(10 of 10)

the private respondents were either having their own dwelling house, or a patta/land or were not resident of the village Chouhtan. Had the petitioners placed the relevant document on record then certainly, each case was required to be decided separately but it is not the case here. Thus, this Court does not deem it appropriate to dispossess the private respondent from the pattas in question, which had been duly allotted to them by the respondent while invoking the relevant provisions of law laid down under the Rules of 1996, moreover, when the said land is not a protected land and is an abadi land available at concessional rate for a particular strata of society.

¶87

(13) Thus, in view of the above discussion and looking to the fact that the petitioners have no locus standi, to file the present writ petitions. The petitioners have filed revision petitions before the District Collector after a delay of three years and also did not chose to file objections and the respondents after adhering to provisions of law as laid down under the Rules of 1996 had allotted the patta in favour of the private respondents, the instant writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶88

(14) With the above observations, the instant writ petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed. Stay applications as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶89

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶90

510-/Devesh Thanvi/-

Madan Lal and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mewar B.Sc. Nursing College Vs State of Rajasthan

Amrit Lal Singla Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Maleshwer Construction Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirwan Charitable Trust Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Madan Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.