Dismissed

Balvinder Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2024CW/10781/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of a land Patta. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove old possession or payment of regularization fees, and the land was public property not eligible for Patta issuance under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Balvinder Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28436]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10781/2024

¶4

Balvinder Singh S/o Shri Malkeet Singh, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Ward No. 11, Village Ratanpura, Tehsil Sangaria, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Hanumangarh.

¶8

The Additional District Collector, Hanumangarh. 3. The Gram Panchayat, Ratanpura, Tehsil Sangaria, Dist. Hanumangarh.

¶9

Mithoo Singh S/o Shri Gurdev Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Ward No.9, Village Ratanpura, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

¶10

Sanjay S/o Shri Rai Singh, By Caste Nai, R/o Ward No. 9, Village Ratanpura, Tehsil Sangaria, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

12/07/2024

¶16

The present writ petition has been preferred against the order impugned dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Additional District Collector, Hanumangarh in Case No.4/2022 whereby the revision petition as preferred by respondents Nos.4 & 5 for cancellation of Patta No.47 dated 05.08.2018 in favour of nonapplicant no.2 (present petitioner) had been allowed and the Patta issued to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat had been ordered to be cancelled.

[2024:RJ-JD:28436]

[CW-10781/2024]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is totally contrary to the record as it is on basis of the old possession that the Patta of the land in question was issued to the petitioner after complete due process been adopted by the Gram Panchayat, Ratanpura. Learned counsel submits that the application as preferred by the petitioner for grant of Patta comprised of all the documents required for the purpose, to prove the old possession of the family of the petitioner since last 50 years. A report on the said application was also called for by the Gram Panchayat from Patwari concerned. Further, a Committee of three members of the Gram Panchayat was also constituted to take the final decision. The Committee, after considering the complete documents as well as the report of the concerned Ward Panch, concluded that the land was a part of abadi land of the Panchayat and hence the Patta of the same could be issued by the Gram Panchayat. Concluding the same, the Committee recommended for grant of Patta and it is only thereafter that the Patta was issued. Learned counsel therefore submits that the order impugned deserves to be interfered with.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that infact, earlier there was a residential construction on the land in question but the same was demolished by the petitioner to raise a new construction and it is only after the said demolition, that a complaint was made on which, he was restrained from raising any construction and it is only because of the said reason that the land was shown to be vacant.

¶22

Heard learned counsel and perused the record.

[2024:RJ-JD:28436]

[CW-10781/2024]

(3 of 4)

A perusal of the record reflects that during the proceedings before the Additional Collector, after service, the complete record was produced before the Court by the Gram Panchayat Ratanpura, Tehsil Sangaria. Even the inquiry report dated 13.08.2019, as conducted by competent officer of the Panchayat Samiti, was placed on record and as per the said report, there was no residential construction on the said land. There was only a public water tank for the animals, constructed on the said land and the remaining land was vacant. Further, the Court specifically observed that the alleged Patta was issued for an area of 8500 sq.ft. in the name of the petitioner whereas in terms of Section 157(2) of the Rajastahan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the maximum limit which can be regularised for residential purpose is 2700 sq. ft. and that too on payment of Rs.200/-.

¶27

So far as the petitioner is concerned, neither the receipt of the said amount was a part of the record of the Gram Panchayat nor the same was placed before the Court. Meaning thereby, firstly, the petitioner was not in old possession of the land in question as there was no proof of any residential house been constructed on the same. Secondly, there was no proof of requisite deposit of payment of cost qua the Patta issued to the petitioner and thirdly , as per the record, the land in question was a public land of Guwad (Choppal) and no Patta qua a public land could have been issued by the Panchayat.

¶28

So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner of there earlier being a construction existing on the land in question is concerned, the same also does not deserve reliance. This Court is of the clear opinion that had the petitioner been in

[2024:RJ-JD:28436]

[CW-10781/2024]

(4 of 4)

possession of the land in question since 50 years, some documents to prove the same could have been produced on record even before the learned Trial Court. Had there been any residential premise on the land in question which was being used since years, some document, for example, the electricity bill, water bill etc. could definitely have been produced to substantiate the same.

¶33

Evidently, not a single document to prove his old possession or to prove that the Patta in question was issued after adopting due process of law, has been placed on record by the petitioner. 8. In view of the above facts, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned and hence, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶34

Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of .

¶35

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶36

260-Vij/-

Balvinder Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Balvinder Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanwar Lal Vs the Pali Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Raghuveer Singh Vs Indira Rathore

Mal Chand Vs Lrs of Late Sh. Karni Dan

Acharya Shri Bhikshu Samadhi Sthatl Sansthan Vs the Chief Provident Fund Commissioner

United Undia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vidhya

Monika Vs Dharmendra