Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 50 (RAJ)

Harpal Singh v. Amarjeet Singh

2009-01-07

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2009
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.2.2008 passed upon the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 97 of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 whereby the Additional District Collector (Admn), Sri Ganganagar has rejected the revision petition filed by him in which he has challenged the allotment of plot in favour of the respondents. 3. The only contention is raised by the petitioner that after amendment and insertion of Section 97-A in the Panchayati Raj Act 1994, the remedy of appeal against the order or direction of Gram Panchayat is available whereas erroneously he has invoked the revisional jurisdiction whereas he was to avail remedy as provided under Section 97-Aof the Act against the order. Further, it is submitted that the order passed by the Addl. District Collector (Admn.), Sri Ganganagar upon revision filed by the petitioner is without jurisdiction on the ground that there is specific remedy under Section 97-A of the Act is available, therefore, the order dated 28.2.2008 may be set aside and the petitioner may be granted liberty to file an appeal in accordance with Section 97-A of the Act. 4. I have perused Section 97 and 97-A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. In my opinion, the Additional District Collector (Admn), Sri Ganganagar is having revisional jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition, therefore, he has exercised its jurisdiction and decide the matter on merit. The petitioner only to get opportunity to avail other remedy is raising ground that another remedy by way of appeal is available to him under Section 97-A of the Act, therefore, he is challenging the order passed upon his revision petition filed under Section 97 of the Act. In my opinion when revision petition can be entertained under Section 97 of the Act and the petitioner has availed that remedy then there is no question of interference in this writ petition because with open eyes the petitioner has invoked the remedy of revision which is more wider for the purpose of correcting illegality committed by Panchayati Raj Institutions. In this view of the matter, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner reported in AIR 1954 SC 314 and 2008(19) CDR 427 are not applicable in this case. In this view of the matter, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner reported in AIR 1954 SC 314 and 2008(19) CDR 427 are not applicable in this case. More so, the petitioner after loosing battle in the revision has tried to raise ground before this Court that he may be permitted to invoke other remedy of appeal provided under Section 97-A of the Act. In my opinion, no such liberty can be granted to the petitioner because he himself has invoked the revisional jurisdiction and upon his revision petition, the Addl. District Collector (Admn), Sri Ganganagar has passed the impugned order on merit, therefore, there is no force in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.