Naina Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Naina Ram ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11316/2017 Biram Ram ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 2824/2017 Ram Chandra ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 12960/2017 Ramu Ram ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13309/2017 Smt. Dakhu ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent (2 of 7) [CW-13015/2017]

S.B. Civil Writ No. 9454/2016 Smt. Chuki ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13242/2016 Shyam Das ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 9453/2016 Bala Ram ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11398/2017 Bhoma Ram ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 12782/2017 Smt. Seeta ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 12158/2016 Sangi Das ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent (3 of 7) [CW-13015/2017]

S.B. Civil Writ No. 4265/2016 Smt. Champa ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 13263/2016 Chaina Ram ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 12157/2016 Shaitan Ram ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paramveer Singh Champawat Mr. Tribhuvan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

20/11/2018

The instant bunch of writ petitions involve common

questions of facts and law and thus, is being decided by this single

order.

The petitioners herein are residents of Village Lordi

Panditji, Panchayat Samiti Mandore and claim to be holding pattas

of land lawfully issued to them by the Gram Panchayat on

20.11.2004.

It appears that the BDO, Panchayat Samiti Nagaur

moved the District Collector, Jodhpur by filing revisions under (4 of 7) [CW-13015/2017]

Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act seeking cancellation of pattas

issued to the petitioners claiming that the same were issued

without following due process of law. The District Collector,

Jodhpur proceeded to accept all the revisions by separate orders

as per the Schedule below and quashed the pattas of land issued

in favour of the petitioners. These orders are assailed by the

petitioners in bunch of writ petitions.

SCHEDULE S.No. S.B.C.W.P. Number Patta No. and Date of and date of revisional order Name of the petitioner issuance 1. 13015/2017 Patta No.98 17.06.2015 Mr. Naina Ram 20.11.2004 2. 4265/2016 Patta No.95 11.12.2015 Mrs. Champa 20.11.2004 3. 9453/2016 Patta No.69 15.07.2015 Mr. Bala Ram 20.11.2004 4. 9454/2016 Patta No.161 15.07.2015 Mrs. Chuki 20.11.2004 5. 12157/2016 Patta No.97 15.07.2015 Mr. Shaitan Ram 20.11.2004 6. 12158/2016 Patta No.77 10.06.2015 Mr. Sangi Das 20.11.2004 7. 13242/2016 Patta No.34 17.06.2015 Mr. Shyam Das 20.11.2004 8. 13263/2016 Patta No.145 17.06.2015 Mr. Chaina Ram 20.11.2004 9. 2824/2017 Patta No.146 15.07.2015 Mr. Ram Chandra 20.11.2004 10. 11316/2017 Patta No.221 15.07.2015 Mr. Biram Ram 20.11.2004 11. 11398/2017 Patta No.171 30.06.2015 Mr. Bhoma Ram 20.11.2004 12. 12782/2017 Patta No.121 03.06.2015 Mrs. Seeta 20.11.2004 13. 12960/2017 Patta No.17 11.12.2015 Mr. Ramu Ram 20.11.2004 14. 13309/2017 Patta No.123 15.07.2015 Mrs. Dhaku 20.11.2004 (5 of 7) [CW-13015/2017]

Learned counsel Mr. Paramveer Singh Champawat and

Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, Advocates representing the petitioners

vehemently and fervently urged that the District Collector

committed grave error in facts as well as in law while entertaining

the revisions in question. The petitioners were in peaceful

possession of the land under the questioned pattas for nearly 9 to

10 years before the revisions came to be instituted. The pattas

were lawfully issued to the petitioners as per their after making

due enquiry and following the requisite procedure provided under

the Panchayati Raj Act and the Land Allotment Rules. The

revisional authority went on to delve into disputed questions of

facts and proceeded to quash the pattas of land lawfully issued to

the petitioners without any justification whatsoever. He further

submitted that the entire action was perpetrated at the instance of

the JDA, which was bent upon to usurp the land in question

lawfully owned by the petitioners for the purpose of establishing

Sardar Patel Police University. He further urged that in view of the

Full Bench decision in the case of Tara & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2015 (3) WLN 197 (Raj.), the

revisions were liable to the dismissed as being time barred. On

these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners craved quashing

of the impugned orders and acceptance of the writ petitions.

Per contra, Mr. Manish Patel, learned AGC, representing

the Panchayati Raj Department, has vehemently and fervently

opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He

submitted that the disputed pattas were issued in favour of the

petitioners without following the due process of law and as such,

the District Collector was absolutely justified in quashing and

setting aside same by the impugned order, which as per Mr. Patel, (6 of 7) [CW-13015/2017]

does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting

interference therein.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

arguments advanced at bar and gone through the material

available on record.

The first and foremost circumstance, which convinces

the court that the revisional authority acted totally in an unjust

manner while entertaining the challenge to the subject pattas is

that the revisions came to be instituted after nearly 9 to 10 years

after the date of issuance of the pattas in question and that too at

at the instance of the Vikas Adhikari concerned. No reason or

cause was set up in the pleadings of the revisions as to why the

pattas issued to the petitioners, who belong to the weaker

sections of the society were being challenged after a gross delay

of 9 years. The administration being the revisionist did not set up

a case that it was not aware of these pattas for all these years.

Though it is true that the concept of delay does not apply in strict

sense to the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the District

Collector by virtue of Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, but

while entertaining a revision filed after significant delay, the court

has to remain mindful of the reasons behind the delay. If there is

no justification whatsoever for the delay, then the revision should

normally should not be entertained. Furthermore, Hon'ble Full

Bench of this court in the case of Tara (supra) considered the very

issue of delay and held that a period of three years should

normally be sufficient to be treated to be the outer limit for

entertaining a challenge to a patta or any such allotment.

Furthermore, on perusal of the impugned order, this court is duly

satisfied that no significant shortcoming, illegality or irregularity in (7 of 7) [CW-13015/2017]

the procedure was pointed out by the revisionist Vikas Adhikari

while filing the questioned revisions. Considering the fact that the

petitioners all belong to the weaker sections of the society, this

court is of the firm opinion that the revisional authority was not at

all satisfied while entertaining purely disputed questions of facts

for setting aside the pattas of land issued to the petitioners way

back in the year 2004. On a careful evaluation on facts as well as

on law, the impugned orders do not stand to scrutiny, thus, the

same are liable to be and are hereby struck down. The writ

petitions deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed, as such.

The stay applications are also disposed of.

No order as to costs.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

Pramod

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)