Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1958 (RAJ)

Atm Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-29

V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Atm Prakash, Petitioner herein, through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ so as to quash order dated 010.1995 (Annexure 1) passed by the Distt. Collector (Panchayat), Pali vide which resolution passed by the gram panchayat dated 28.02.1995 for giving a plot to the petitioner, was rejected. Further prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to regularise the plot of the petitioner as has been done in the cases of persons similarly situate by according appropriate approval and accordingly, Sanad/Patta be granted in his favour. 2. Brief facts, as projected in the petition, reveal that the petitioner being a landless person, wanted some land for habitation. In 1989-1990, a general auction was announced by the Gram Panchayat, Devli Kalan, Tehsil Raipur, Distt. Pali for 160 plots for residential purposes. The petitioner also gave his bid for Plot No. 121. For this plot, he was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 5,461/-and as per rules, he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,371/-being 1/4th of the amount, on the spot. It is case of the petitioner that as per the Rajasthan Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats (General) Rules, 1961 (in short the Rules) if the amount of bid was to exceed Rs. 5,000/-, sanction from the Collector was necessary. Consequently, the then Sarpanch sent letter to the Collector for according sanction according to law. Thereafter, Sarpanch of gram panchayat is stated to have written scores of letters to the Collector that all the files pending for sanction may be sent back after according sanction so that the cases may be finalised but no tangible steps were taken by the Collector. Meanwhile, after deposit of 1/4th of the bid amount, in anticipation of sanction of the Collector, possession of the land in question was given to the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that out of 160 plots 130 plots were regularised and huge constructions had come out over those plots whereas remaining plots remained yet to be sanctioned by the Collector and fate of these persons remained in lurch. Petitioner is stated to have raised construction on the plot in question and started living there with his family. Petitioner is stated to have raised construction on the plot in question and started living there with his family. He is a person belonging to scheduled caste and in the meagre salary, he had been living in the Bada after raising four walls around the plot and also raised some construction therein. Collector, the third respondent herein, without according the sanction as per law, vide his letter dated 4th October, 1995 sent back case of the petitioner to the Gram Panchayat alongwith cases of persons similarly situate with the direction that it may decide the cases according to law, assess the value and issue a Sanad according to law. It was on 16.04.1996 that the Sarpanch as per directions of the Collector, contained in Annexure-1 dated 010.1995, again recommended that price of the land which was arrived at in the auction should be enhanced to 75% and after adding this 75% more in the price, the plots be regularised. Then ensued long correspondence between the Sarpanch and the Collector. It was after a long time thereafter that the plot was cancelled by not approving the sale in favour of the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondents have filed reply and contested cause of the petitioner. It appears that on the pleadings made in the petition as also in the written statement, sale of plot could not be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as a playground for school children was to be made. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner says that there are number of grounds to seek possession of the very plot for which the petitioner was the highest bidder, like number of plots in the same area having been sanctioned in favour of others etc., but the petitioner would be satisfied if he is given a plot of an equivalent area that may be belonging to the gram panchayat, located else where, on the price on which the petitioner had made the bid. In support of his prayer mentioned above, learned Counsel relies upon proceedings contained in Annexure R-4/2 dated 11.06.1994. These proceedings, it appears, came into being on 11.06.1994 with a view to solve the dispute with regard to the construction of the boundary wall of Government Middle School for Girls. In support of his prayer mentioned above, learned Counsel relies upon proceedings contained in Annexure R-4/2 dated 11.06.1994. These proceedings, it appears, came into being on 11.06.1994 with a view to solve the dispute with regard to the construction of the boundary wall of Government Middle School for Girls. The meeting as aforesaid was attended by many including Patwari of the area and the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat, Devli Kalan, Panchayat Samiti Raipur (Pali). It has inter alia been mentioned in the proceedings referred to above that the Gram Panchayat had requested to change the plots and give equal area of the plots to the persons concerned at some other place. 5. Confronted with the document to which the authorities constituted under the Gram Panchayat were the signatories, Counsel representing the contesting respondents No. 4 and 5 could not contend anything but for to state that the money received from the petitioner towards sale of plot was returned to him, which he, however, did not accept. Mere fact that on non-sanction of the resolution of the Panchayat by the Collector, the money received from the petitioner towards sale of plot was ordered to be returned which, as mentioned above, the petitioner did not accept, would not per se defeat rights of the petitioner who concededly was the highest bidder and had paid the price payable at the time of bid. Interest of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the respondents No. 4 and 5 to give the plot to the petitioner in any residential area in the village by charging rest of the price on which the petitioner was to be given Plot No. 121. Gram Panchayat will ensure that the plot is given to the petitioner at a place for which there cannot be any objection and that being so, the concerned Distt. Collector would sanction the same. The petitioner belongs to weaker section of the society. He has been deprived of a homestead which is one of the basic necessities of a human being. It is thus further directed that the entire exercise, as mentioned above, must be completed within three months from today. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.