Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 916 (RAJ)

Jasraj v. The Additional Collector, Barmer

2006-03-22

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The Gram Panchayat, Jasol by its order 08.08.1976 decided to sale a plot of land to Respondent No. 5 Shri Laxmichand @ rupee one per sq. ft. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of Gram Panchayat, the petitioner perferred an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti, Balotra which was accepted by an order dated 07.01.1978, accordingly the order dated 08.08.1976 was set aside. The Panchayat Samiti, Balotra while accepting the appeal preferred by the petitioner held that the land in dispute belonged to present petitioner. 3. The Respondent No. 5 gave challenge to the order dated 07.01.1978 by way of filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, Barmer but the same was rejected being not maintainable. 4. The Respondent No. 5, therefore, filed a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same came to be accepted by Judgment dated 27.03.1979. This Court by Judgment dated 27.03.1979 directed the Additional Collector, Barmer to treat the appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the order dated 07.01.1978 as a revision petition under Rule 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1961”) and then to decide the same on merits. The Additional Collector, Barmer accordingly treated the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 5 as a revision petition and after hearing the parties accepted it by Judgment dated 210.1990. 5. It is pertinent to note that the Additional Collector, Barmer while adjudicating the revision petition also inspected the site on 21.06.1990. The Additional Collector, Barmer while accepting the revision petition preferred by the Respondent No. 5 held that the land in dispute was included in the list of private property of Shri Himmat Singh, a former jagirdar, as a part of a conspiracy and in fact the land was a property of the Gram Panchayat. The Additional Collector, Barmer also not found the sale-deed made in favour of present petitioner by former jagirdar trustworthy. 6. The instant petition for writ is preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the Judgment dated 210.1990 passed by the Additional Collector, Barmer setting aside the order dated 08.08.1976 passed by Panchayat Samiti, Balotra. 7. The Additional Collector, Barmer also not found the sale-deed made in favour of present petitioner by former jagirdar trustworthy. 6. The instant petition for writ is preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the Judgment dated 210.1990 passed by the Additional Collector, Barmer setting aside the order dated 08.08.1976 passed by Panchayat Samiti, Balotra. 7. While giving challenge to the Judgment dated 210.1990 it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Collector, Barmer exceeded the jurisdiction vested with him while holding that the land in dispute was not a private property of former jagirdar Shri Himmat Singh and of the petitioner. 8. Per contra, in reply to the writ petition it is contented on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 that the land in dispute was never a private property of former jagirdar and of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that former jagirdar Himmat Singh himself was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jasol and he verified his own properties by including the land in dispute in it erroneously. It is emphasised by learned Counsel for the respondents that the Additional Collector after considering all the facts available on record reached at the conclusion that the land in dispute was property of Gram Panchayat, Jasol and was included in private property of former jagirdar as a part of conspiracy, such a finding is not required to be interfered under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Heard Counsel for the parties. 10. From perusal of Judgment impugned it is clear that the Additional Collector, Barmer considered the entire material available on record and reached at a specific conclusion that a property of Gram Panchayat as a part of conspiracy was included in the list of private properties of former jagirdar. The Additional Collector, Barmer thoroughly examined entire record and also inspected the site. The finding given by the Additional Collector is supported by sufficient evidence and its sound appreciation. 11. This Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ in the nature of certiorari is not required to interfere with such findings of facts. The allegation of the petitioner that the Additional Collector travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested with him is not at all substantiated by legal foundation. The Additional Collector quite meticulously examined the entire record and gave a specific finding of fact. The allegation of the petitioner that the Additional Collector travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested with him is not at all substantiated by legal foundation. The Additional Collector quite meticulously examined the entire record and gave a specific finding of fact. I do not find any reason to disturb the same while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition, therefore, is having no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.