Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2554 (RAJ)

Sona Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-22

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the Parties. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are claiming that they are having lawful possession over a piece of land/constructed shops, which were given to them by the Gram Panchayat, Ramdevra for running shops. The petitioners are paying the rent as per the demand of the Gram Panchayat, Ramdevra. The petitioners are in occupation of the land/shops since last about 20 years. According to petitioners, the petitioners submitted application before the Gram Panchayat, Ramdevra for issuance of Patta for the land/shop, which were given to the petitioners and said applications are pending before the Gram Panchayat since long. The petitioners approached the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat many a times, but the petitioners applications have not been considered by the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the petitioners submitted representations before the Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Ramdevra and one of the representation is dated 4th April, 2005, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-4 in S.B. CivilWrit Petition No. 4885/2005. The petitioners apprehended that they may be dispossessed without following the due process of law, therefore, they also submitted representation that the petitioners should not be dispossessed without following the due process of law. It will be worthwhile to mention here that some petitioners earlier had dispute with private persons and apprehending their dispossession, the petitioners preferred the writ petitions before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court holding that the dispute as it was raised in the earlier writ petitions was between the two private parties and appropriate remedy in the facts of that case was by filing civil suit for appropriate relief . However, in this case, the petitioners prayed that respondents may be directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land/constructed shops, which they are occupying, without following due process of law and the respondents may be directed to decide the applications of the petitioners for grant of Patta in accordance with law. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent Gram Panchayat submits that petitioners were allotted shops by the Gram Panchayat and they agreed that they will pay the rent/licence fees from time to time to the Gram Panchayat and as per the condition contained in the receipt issued to the petitioners, the petitioners are under obligation to pay the rent determined by the Mella Committee for the period of Mella. This agreement is not in dispute. This agreement is not in dispute. The Mella Committee is consisting of SDM, BDO and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. They decided about the amount to be taken for Mella period. About this payment, there is no dispute in the writ petition. 4. In view of the above, according to learned Counsel for the respondent Gram Panchayat, the writ petitions can be disposed of as the respondents undertake not to dispossess the petitioners without following the due process of law. It is also submitted that the respondents have not issued any Patta to any one for the shops/land, which was allotted alongwith the petitioners. It is also submitted that whether to grant Patta for the shop/land in dispute, is a matter of policy and that can be decided by the State with the consultation and as per the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat, but at present, there is no policy of allotting the land/shop in question to the petitioners or for granting Patta for the land/shop in dispute. 5. In view of the above since the respondents have stated that the respondents are not dispossessing the petitioners till the petitioners pay the rent and will not dispossess the petitioners in any case without following due process of law, nothing survives for this Court to direct the respondents to do anything more for this purpose. For grant of Patta the petitioners failed to make out any case in view of the fact that the petitioners could not disclose under which provision of law they have right to obtain Patta for the land/shop in dispute, which is not for sale from the State or from the Gram Panchayat. Under what term and condition, the petitioners can continue is determined by the terms and conditions on which petitioners are occupying the land in dispute. At the same time, if the petitioners submitted their application for grant of Patta then the matter can be considered by the Gram Panchayat and by the State Government by taking into account all the facts. Unless such a decision is taken by the Gram Panchayat or the State Government it is difficult to lay down any guideline by the Court for the State rather it would not be appropriate for the Court to interfere in such a matter of taking decision by the Gram Panchayat or the State. Unless such a decision is taken by the Gram Panchayat or the State Government it is difficult to lay down any guideline by the Court for the State rather it would not be appropriate for the Court to interfere in such a matter of taking decision by the Gram Panchayat or the State. Therefore, the respondent Gram Panchayat and the State may decide the representations/applications submitted by the petitioners strictly in accordance with law and as per their policy. 6. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are disposed of in view of the undertaking given by the respondents that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner without following the due process of law and petitioners shall pay the rent as they were paying earlier and as per the decision of the Mella Committee time to time, unless it is unreasonable that can be challenged by them in case any occasion arises for them to challenge. The representations/applications of the petitioners for grant of Patta may be considered by the Gram Panchayat and appropriate order may be passed by the Gram Panchayat within a period of four months from today.