Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 685 (RAJ)

Pancha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-01

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By the instant writ petition a challenge is given by the petitioners to the order dated 211.1997 passed by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur in Revision Petition No. 259/1993 Pancha Ram & Ors. vs. Gram Panchayat, Chadi and Ors. whereby the Additional Collector, Jodhpur while exercising the powers under Section 27-A of Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 r/w Rule 272 of Rajasthan Panchayat Rules, 1961 rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioners. A challenge is also given to the order dated 212.1999 passed by the Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur refusing to review the order dated 211.1997. 2. The petitioners by way of filing a revision petition under Section 27-A of the Act of 1953 r/w Rule 272 of the Rules of 1961 challenged allotment of land by the Gram Panchayat, Chadi Chauthina in favour of Department of Police for the purpose of constructing a police chowki. The petitioner contended before the revisional authority that the land which was allotted to the police department is not an Abadi land and, therefore, the land could not be subjected to allotment under the Rules of 1961. The Addl. Collector rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioners mainly on the count that the petitioners failed to establish that the land in dispute was not an Abadi Land. The Additional Collector also refused to exercise the revisional powers as the revision petition was filed after a lapse of 36 years from the date of allotment of land 3. The contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional Collector while deciding the revision petition under Section 27-A of the Act of 1961 has not taken into consideration the report submitted by the Tehsildar under the directions given by the Additional Collector himself on 27.1995. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the land in dispute is part of Abadi land and also that the revision petition was filed by the petitioners after a gross delay and the same, therefore, was rightly rejected by the Additional Collector. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. I have also perused the original record pertaining to the Revision Petition No. 259/1993 decided by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur by the impugned orders. 5. I have perused the report submitted by the Tehsildar (Land Records) Phalodi on 112.1996. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. I have also perused the original record pertaining to the Revision Petition No. 259/1993 decided by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur by the impugned orders. 5. I have perused the report submitted by the Tehsildar (Land Records) Phalodi on 112.1996. The Tehsildar (Land Records) Phalodi in its report has stated that according to the measurement report submitted by Inspector (Land Records) the land in dispute which was allotted to police department is not Abadi land. No reference of this report is given by the Additional Collector while deciding the revision petition by the order impugned. The Tehsildar (Land Records) Phalodi submitted the report dated 112.1996 under the directions given by the Additional Collector, and ,therefore, it was obligatory upon the Additional Collector to consider the report before holding that no sufficient evidence was produced by the petitioners to establish that the land allotted to police department is not an Abadi land. 6. The another ground on which the Additional Collector dismissed the revision petition, i.e., with regard to delay in filing revision petition is also of no consequence as the petitioners questioned jurisdiction and competence of the Gram Panchayat for making allotment of a land to police department which according to them was not an Abadi land. According to the petitioners the lack of jurisdiction with Gram Panchayat was patent as no land other than Abadi could be allotted under the Rules of 1961. An act beyond the jurisdiction cannot be brought within jurisdiction merely for non-lodging complaint. An error of jurisdiction cannot be treated cured by afflux of time. The Additional Collector therefore, was wrong in rejecting the revision petition on the count of delay. 7. In view of whatever stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 211.1997 and 212.1999 are hereby quashed. The revisional authority is directed to decide the revision petition preferred by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. The revisional authority is expected to consider the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Phalodi dated 112.1996 while deciding the revision petition. It is also left open for the revisional authority to make further inquiry with regard to character and status of the land in question. Till disposal of the revision petition the respondents shall not disturb the status as existing at the land in issue. 8. No order as to costs.