Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 522 (RAJ)

Nanag Ram v. Addl. District Collector, Karauli

2001-03-29

K.S.RATHORE

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is being preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.10.1992 passed by the Additional District Collector, Karauli in Revision Petition No.190/91. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioner on the basis of possession for more than 20-25 years on the land measuring 60 x 60' in village Kailadevi in Gram Panchayat Loharra, applied on 10.4.90 beore the Gram Panchayat Loharra to allot the said land in his favour. In pursuance to that, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat appointed Panchas for inspection of the said land and the inspection report was submitted by the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat on 28.5.90. 3. Thereafter, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Loharra also invited objections in view of the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules 1961 (for short, the Rules of 1961), but no one had filed objections before the Panchayat against the allotment of the said land in favour of the petitioner. After taking into consideration the bonafide, plausible claim or the title of the petitioner, the map was prepared by the Assistant Secretary and the Gram Panchayat resolved that as the land in question would not fetch reasonable price by way of auction, the said land measuring 60 x 60' situated in land Khasra No. 2860 be allotted in favour of the petitioner on a premium of Rs. 1/- per square yard and the patta be issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the requisite amount in view of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 28.5.90 and ultimately the patta was allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat Loharra. 4. The petitioner having obtained the sale deed from the respondent No.2 learnt that a fake and false sale deed was also issued in favour of one Smt. Kallo who was not the resident of Kailadevi but actually was the resident of Bombay in the back date by the Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition on 12.11.91 before the learned Additional Collector, Karauli challenging the patta issued in favour of Smt. Kallo Devi. 5. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition on 12.11.91 before the learned Additional Collector, Karauli challenging the patta issued in favour of Smt. Kallo Devi. 5. The learned Additional Collector after hearing the argument of the petitioner, vide its order dated 13.10.92 set aside the sale deed issued in favour of Smt. Kallo Devi and he also set aside the sale deed granted in favour of the petitioner and after setting aside both the Pattas belonging to the petitioner and Smt. Kallo Devi the Collector directed the Gram Panchayat Kailadevi to dispose of the land by way of open auction in accordance with provisions of law. 6. Being aggrieved against the order dated 13.10.92 passed by the learned Additional Collector Karauli, the petitioner preferred this present writ petition before this Court seeking writ/order or direction in the nature to quash and set aside the order dated 13.10.92 of the Additional Distrcit Collector, Karauli and to restore the order dated 28.5.90 passed by the Gram Panchayat Loharra with the prayer to restrain the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner out of the disputed land. 7. During the pendency of this present writ petition applicant Ram Chandra Singh Son of Loka Singh resident of Village Radhopur Post Bihata District Patna (Bihar) filed a misc. application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with order 1 rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for impleading him as a necessary party to the writ petition. The applicant Ram Chandra Singh also claimed right over the disputed land for which the petitioner and respondent No.4 are claiming title and they were given pattas also by the Gram Panchayat. The application submitted by Ram Chandra Singh was allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.3.95 and he was impleaded" as a necessary party. In the meantime, the petitioner has expired on 10.10.2000 leaving behind the sole heir Madan Mohan Sharma s/o Shri Rahul Lai Sharma in whose favour he executed the deed on 1.6.88 by which, the petitioner has bequeathed his all property in his favour. 8. An application under Article 226 read with Order 22 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code has been submitted on behalf of applicant Madan Mohan Sharma and prayed that the application may be allowed and the name of the petitioner be deleted and in his place name of Madan Mohan Sharma applicant be substituted. 8. An application under Article 226 read with Order 22 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code has been submitted on behalf of applicant Madan Mohan Sharma and prayed that the application may be allowed and the name of the petitioner be deleted and in his place name of Madan Mohan Sharma applicant be substituted. The application was allowed by this Court on 2.2.2001 and name of Shri Madan Mohan Sharma was substituted in place of original petitioner Nanag Ram. 9. On behalf of Additional District Collector, Karauli, Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Advocate, has appeared. Respondent No.3 is being represented by the Advocate Shri Rajnish Gupta. Respondents No. 2 and 4 are not represented by any counsel nor they personally have appeared. 10. During the course of arguments it was informed by the petitioner that a civil suit is pending before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, ICarauli which was filed by the petitioner wherein Ram Chandra Singh was also impleaded as a necessary party including the Gram Panchayat and Mst. Kallo Devi. The case of Ram Chandra Singh was that the land in question measuring 60 x 60' square yards situated at Kailadevi was given to him by one Shri Brijendra Pal, the sole trustee of Kailadevi Temple Trust, and he also granted permission on 5.12.79 to Shri Ram Chandra to construct a Dharamshala. 11. Shri Babu Lai Gupta also submitted that construction over the disputed land was started by Ram Chandra Singh in the year 1980. In October, 1993, he came to know that, in the construction work made by him from 1980, certain changes have been made by some persons and when the respondent No.3 Ram Chandra approached the police, then only he came to know that one Mohan Lal son-in-law of Nanag Ram was claiming the land in dispute. 12. Respondent No.3 also submitted document in support of his claim over the disputed land including the permission letter dated 15.12.79 issued by Brijendra Pal Singh and also a copy of Labour Contract with Sugna and Chirangi dated 16.10.80 and also submitted some correspondence made in between them dated 3.1.80, 9.2.81, 21.6.81, 26.2.81, 30.11.80 and also submitted copy of application elated 23.3.93 which was moved to the SHO Kailadevi. 13. 13. To resolve the present controversy reference of the following relevant Rules of 1971 (sic 1961 ?) are necessary:- the petitioner referred the following rules of the Rules of 1971 (sic 1961 ?) Rule 255. Abadi land defined-The impression "abadi land" means nazul land lying within the inhabitated areas of a Panchayat circle which vests or has been vested in or has been placed at the disposal of a Panchayat by or under an order of the State Government. Rule 256. Application for purchase-(1) A person desirous of purchasing any abadi land from the Panchayat shall make an application in writing to the Panchayat, giving such description thereof as may be sufficient to indentify the land proposed to be purchased. (2) The applicant shall, alongwith his application, deposit a sum of two rupees with the Panchayat towards the expenses of the preparation of the plan of the land sought to be purchased. Rule 266. Transfer of abadi land by private negotiation. -(1)(d) The Panchayat may transfer any abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation in the cases where the persons are in possession of the abadi land for 20 years or more but less than 42 years, one-third of the prevailing market price and in case of possession of over 40 years, one sixth of the prevailing market price shall be charged. 14. As per the petitioner, in the instant case, Rule 266(1)(d) is applicable,. He submits that the resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat Loharra holding that as the land in dispute will not fetch market price if the said land is disposed of by way of auction, it was decided to allot the land in favour of the petitioner by way of private negotiation and allotment was made at the rate of Rs. 1/- per square yard in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted Annexures 9 to 11, copies of pattas, to establish the fact that these pattas were also issued by the Gram Panchayat on the same terms and conditions. 15. Shri Babu Lal Gupta appearing on behalf of Additional Collector supports the judgment passed by the Additional Collector and submits that the Additional Collector has rightly set aside both the pattas belonging to petitioner and respondent No.4. 16. 15. Shri Babu Lal Gupta appearing on behalf of Additional Collector supports the judgment passed by the Additional Collector and submits that the Additional Collector has rightly set aside both the pattas belonging to petitioner and respondent No.4. 16. To decide the present controversy, provisions of Rule 272 of the Rules of 1971 (sic 1961) are to be looked into which are as under: 272. Revision-(1) The State Government or any officer or authority to whom the powers of the State Government under section 27-A may have been delegated by notification under section 70, on its or his own motion or on an application made in this behalf, may for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the Panchayat or the Panchayat Samiti or the Collector (or the Revenue Appellate Authority), under rule 265 (or rule 266 or rule 267 or rule 268) or on appeal under rule 270, called for the connected records and may, in doing so, direct that, pending the examination of the records, such order shall be held in abeyance. 2. After examining the records, the State Government or such officer or authority, as the case may be, may reverse, alter or modify the order of Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti, Collector or (Revenue Appellate Authority). COMMENTARY ORDER in revision should not be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the party whose valuable rights are likely to be affected by order proposed to be passed-Principles of natural justice should be followed. 17. Thus, the Additional Collector, Karauli has got power to scrutinise any order passed by the Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti under rules 265 and 266 and in view of the provisions of Rule 272 the Additional District Collector is empowered to call for the record and examine the record suo moto at his own motion but such order in revision should not be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the party whose valuable rights are likely to be affected by order proposed to be passed-principles of natural justice should be followed. 18. But, here in the instant case, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, his patta was cancelled which is against the provisions of rule 272 and also against the provisions of the natural justice. 18. But, here in the instant case, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, his patta was cancelled which is against the provisions of rule 272 and also against the provisions of the natural justice. The learned Additional Collector Karauli not only set aside the patta issued in favour of Mst. Kallo Devi but also set aside the patta issued in favour of the petitioner without following the mandatory provisions of the Rules referred above. 19. So far as the controversy of ownership of the disputed land is concerned this Court cannot decide such' disputed facts while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Cosntitution of India. 20. So far as order dated 13.10.92 passed by the Additional Collector is concerned, without affording opportunity of hearing the patta given in favour of the petitioner cannot be cancelled in view of the provisions of rule 272 of the Rules of 1971 (sic 1961). 21. Therefore, the order dated 30.10.92 is set aside and the Additional Collector is directed to hear the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the parties. The parties are advised to appear before the Additional Collector, Karauli on 16.4.2001. The Additional Collector is advised to dispose of the matter expeditiously strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. In view of the abovesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of with no orders as to cost. Petition disposed of. *******