Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1 (RAJ)

Durga Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-02

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the judgement dated 15.07.1993 passed by the Collector, Bikaner exercising powers under Rule 272 of Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of present writ petition are that a piece of land was sold by Gram Panchayat-Kolayat to the petitioner as a consequence of resolution dated 16.03.1991. Accordingly, the Patta was also issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner which is placed on record as Annexure-1. A challenge to the allotment made in favour of petitioner by the Gram Panchayat Kolayat, was given by the respondent Shri Amolak Ram by way of filing a revision petition before the Collector, Bikaner under Rule 272 of the Rules of 1961. The Collector, Bikaner by the order impugned accepted the revision petition and set aside the Patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner. 3. The Collector held that before issuing the Patta in favour of the petitioner the procedure prescribed was not adhered by the Gram Panchayat. The another reason given for setting aside the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner, is that the allotment of land which is utilized by public at large should not be allotted to any specific person. Beside the above, the Collector also held that the land allotted to the petitioner is quite close to the land allotted earlier by the Gram Panchayat for constructing a public tank. By the instant petition a challenge is given to the order dated 15.07.1993 passed by the Collector, Bikaner. 4. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned dated 15.07.1993 is perverse, and therefore, deserves to be quashed as the Collector failed to support the findings given by reasons. It is contended that though the learned Collector set aside the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner on the count that while issuing the same, Gram Panchayat failed to adhere the procedure prescribed under Rules of 1961 however, nothing is said in the order impugned that as to how there was any violation of provision of the Rule of 1961. 5. The another contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector, before passing the order impugned, sought a report of inspection of the site from the Tehsildar (Revenue) Kolayat. The Tehsildar submited its report on 07.02.1992. 5. The another contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector, before passing the order impugned, sought a report of inspection of the site from the Tehsildar (Revenue) Kolayat. The Tehsildar submited its report on 07.02.1992. The Tehsildar while submitting the report in quite unambiguous terms stated that the Patta issued with regard to allotment of land for public tank appears to be issued at some subsequent date than the date mentioned in the Patta itself . A copy of the inspection report is placed on record as Annexure-4. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that without having any evidence the Collector, Bikaner held that the allotment of land which is used for public purpose is objectionable. 6. Heard Counsel for the petitioner. 7. The first contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is with regard to finding given by the Collector, Bikaner for non-compliance of the provisions of Rules 1961. From reading of the order impugned dated 15.07.1993 it is apparent that the Collector, Bikaner in quite vague manner reached at the conclusion that before issuing Patta in favour of the petitioner Gram Panchayat did not adhere the provisions of the Rules of 1961. It does not reveal from reading of the order that how and in what manner the Gram Panchayat failed to adhere the provisions of Rules of 1961. The Collector while giving such finding should have discussed the entire procedure adopted by the Gram Panchayat while making allotment of land in favour of the petitioner and issuing Patta in consequence thereof . The Collector without discussing the procedure prescribed and adopted by the Gram Panchayat gave his finding. The same is not at all sustainable as nothing is said by the Collector as to how the Gram Panchayat failed to adhere the provisions of Rules of 1961. 8. The next contention of Counsel for the petitioner also deserves acceptance as from reading of the order impugned it is apparent that the Collector has not taken into consideration the inspection report submitted by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Kolayat. Once an order was made by the Collector to obtain inspection report then the same should have been considered by him. It was open for the Collector to accept the inspection report or to reject the same for specific reasons but the minimum requirement was to consider the same while deciding the revision petition. Once an order was made by the Collector to obtain inspection report then the same should have been considered by him. It was open for the Collector to accept the inspection report or to reject the same for specific reasons but the minimum requirement was to consider the same while deciding the revision petition. The finding given by the Collector to the effect that the allotment of land to the petitioner is objectionable as the same was utilized by the public at large is also not having any foundation. The finding given by the quasi judicial authority is always required to be supported by specific reasons. If the finding is not supported by the reasons then the same cannot be accepted. In the present case the Judgment impugned is apparently lacking the reasons to support the finding. 9. In view of it, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves acceptance and the same, therefore, is allowed. The order impugned dated 15.07.1993 passed by the Collector, Bikaner in Revision Panchayat No. 1/1992 (Amolak Ram vs. Smt. Durga Devi) is quashed. No order as to cost. S