Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1 (RAJ)

Ramesh Chand v. Ram Charan Singh

2012-01-01

ALOK SHARMA

body2012
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Challenge in this petition has been laid to the order dated 21.6.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur, quashing and setting aside the orders./resolutions dated 22.10.1983 and 12.9.1995 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Choth-ka-Barwada allotting a Patta by way of regularisation of land in favour of the petitioner and remaining the matter back to the Gram Panchayat with a direction to revisit the issue of allotment of Patta to the petitioner by way of regularization following a site inspection and determining as to whether there was an old pre-existing house constructed thereon and thereafter pass an order in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996). 2. Facts of the case are that a parcel of land admeasuring 17 x 44 feet was in possession of the father of the petitioner, one late Gopal Singh. Gopal Singh on the basis of his old pre-existing construction over the said parcel of land, moved an application on or before 8.8.1981 before the Gram Panchayat, Choth-ka-Barwada, district Sawaimadhopur for regularization of his possession by way of allotment of Patta in his name. The Gram Panchayat invited objections from the general public of thee village to the proposed regularization and allotment of Patta to Gopal Singh and no objections thereon being received from any person living in the locality/vicinity, a Committee constituted for site inspection and after completing all formalities according to the extant Act and the Rules it was decided to grant Patta of the land in issue ad measuring 17 x 40 feet @ Rs. 10/- per square yard. 3. It appears that after the allotment, Gopal Singh failed to make the requisite payment of the amount determined for the land allotted. Consequently, the Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 11.12.1984 cancelled the allotment. The father of the petitioner however thereafter deposited an amount of Rs. 833/- with the Gram Panchayat, Choth-ka-Barwada on or before 13th April, 1990 under receipt No. 14466. The matter was thereafter pursued with the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat consequently in its meeting dated 12.9.1995 recalled its order dated 11.12.1984 cancelling regularization/allotment to the petitioners father and with reference to the application of the petitioner's father moved on 7.8.1990 took a unanimous decision on 10.9.1995 to revive the resolution dated 20.10.1983 and restore the allotment of the plot ad measuring 17 x 40 feet. 4. 4. Following Gopal Singh's death, as his legal heir the petitioner became the owner of the land in issue with construction thereon. 5. Six years subsequent to the issuance of Patta on 13.9.1995, on or about 2.5.2011 one Ram Charan Singh, respondent No. 1 herein preferred an appeal under Section 61 of the now extant Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1994 against the order dated 13.9.1995 passed by the Gram Panchayat before the Administrative Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Sawaimadhopur. It was prayed in the appeal that the Committee quash and set aside the orders dated 20.10.1983 and 12.10.1995 passed by the Gram Panchayat Choth-ka-Barwada and cancel the patta issued to the petitioner's father in pursuance thereof. The said appeal however was dismissed by the Administrative Committee under its order dated 27.6.2005. 6. However, while the appeal was pending but prior to the dismissal thereof on 27.6.2005, on or about 21.6.2005 the respondents No. 1 to 5 moved, a revision petition purporting to be one under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 challenging the issuance of patta by the Gram Panchayat, Choth-ka-Barwada to the petitioner's father in pursuance to the Gram Panchayat's resolution dated 22.10.1983 and 12.9.1995. 7. It is relevant to state that even while the revision petition was pending and the appeal filed under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 having been dismissed on 27.6.2005 the said fact was not brought to the notice of the revising authority nor a challenge laid to the order dated 27.6.1995 passed by the Administrative Committee of the Panchayat Samiti. 8. On the matter coming up before the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur on the revision petition belatedly filed after about 20 years from the date of initial regularization/allotment of land in issue in the name of the petitioner's father on 22.10.1983, the petitioner took a specific objection with regard to the delay and laches in the filing of revision petition as also the fact that the revision petition sought to challenge only the order of regularization/allotment without putting in issue the order dated 27.6.2005 passed by the appellate authority upholding the allotment and regularization made to the petitioner's father. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner and his ancestors had been in possession of the said plot with construction for decades and in terms of the extent Rules the possession of the petitioner's father had been regularised by the Gram Panchayat, Choth-ka-Barwada after a site inspection as also the requisite notice inviting objections locally and consequently, there was no illegality or irregularity in the allotment made as early as 20.10.1983 and subsequently revived by order dated 12.9.1995. It was submitted by the petitioner that the allegations of plot allotted being located in an area of public utility were absolutely false and incorrect and the said plot of land had never been put to public use and that the revision petition belatedly filed was a mere outcome of the ill will of the certain neighbors. The revising authority however on consideration of the matter even while noting in the earlier part of its order that the site inspection had been got conducted and objections invited by way of notice from the public in the locality at the relevant time, proceeded to cancel the allotment vide the impugned order dated 21.6.2005. 9. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order as also the documents annexed to the writ petition. 10. I find substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition ought not to have been entertained belatedly in the year 2005 in respect of a regularization./allotment by the Gram Panchayat Choth-ka-Barwada made as early as 22.10.1983 which after the initial hiccup was revived vide order dated 22.9.1995. Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act even while conferring broad powers with the Government to revise any order passed by a Panchayat Raj Institution cannot be construed to be a power available after an unreasonable period of time from the order sought to be challenged/impugned. It is now well settled in law that where limitation has not been specifically provided under a statute, yet the Courts should exercise their revising powers within a reasonable period of time. It is now well settled in law that where limitation has not been specifically provided under a statute, yet the Courts should exercise their revising powers within a reasonable period of time. Reference in this regard can be had to a judgment of this Court in Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000(2) WLC 321 wherein this Court held that the exercise of revising power by the Collector after a delay of about 6 years was absolutely unreasonable and consequently the order of the Collector founded upon such exercise of power was set aside. 11. The issue of unreasonable delay in the exercise of revising powers and its consequences has invited the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on various occasions. The law which can be culled out from the judgments of the Supreme Court, more particularly in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363 , is that even though no specific limitation has been provided for exercising revising power, yet such powers should be exercised within a reasonable period of time. As to what constitutes a reasonable period of time even though not mathematically determinable, has to be determined in the context of a given fact situation on each occasion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where unreasonable delay in exercise of revising power has been established, it has a effect of affecting the validity of exercise of such power. The facts and circumstances of the case at hand indicate that resort to revising power of the Government u/S. 97 of the Act of 1994 in the instant case was palpably unreasonable. The revision had been filed after delay of about 18 years from the fundamental underlying resolution dated 20.10.1983 by which a decision was taken by the Gram Panchayat Choth-ka-Barwada for regularising the possession of the petitioners father and make an allotment to him. Subsequently, the said resolution was withdrawn but was revived on 12.5.1995. During this entire period the petitioner's father continued to be in occupation and subsequently the petitioner as his legal heir came into ownership and possession and would have unquestionably invested his hard earned monies on his living house. Subsequently, the said resolution was withdrawn but was revived on 12.5.1995. During this entire period the petitioner's father continued to be in occupation and subsequently the petitioner as his legal heir came into ownership and possession and would have unquestionably invested his hard earned monies on his living house. As such filing of revision petition in 2005 cannot be said to be a reasonable resort to Section 97 of the Act of 1994 and the Additional Collector ought to have, on objections taken by the petitioners specific to the delays in filing the petition, dismissed the revision petition on this count alone. 12. It is no doubt true that even though section 97 of the Act of 1994 confers power of revision and review on the Government and does not prescribe a period of limitation, yet the period within which the aggrieved party can invoke the power u/S. 97 of the Act of 1994 has to be reasonable. The reasonableness of the period within which the power u/S. 97 of the Act of 1994 can be invoked can also be construed with reference to the scheme of the Act of 1994 and the provisions of limitation in respect of appeals. Appeals u/S. 61 of the Act of 1994 have to be filed within 30 days, so to appeals u/S. 97A of the Act of 1994. Appeals u/S. 71 of the Act of 1994 are to be filed within 90 days as also the appeals under Section 91(4) and 91-A. Consequently, the policy of the Act of 1994 appears to be expeditious conclusion of disputes under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act as it is reflective of a statutory policy of avoiding festering of disputes in panchayat leading to disharmony if not out-right hostility between the inhabitants of the panchayat and consuming their time in unproductive enterprises entailing a net loss to the society. In this context reasonableness of the period for filing of revision petition u/S. 97 cannot be construed to extent to several years. Such an interpretation of the reasonableness of time to file revision petition u/S. 97 of the Act of 1994 would be dichotomous with the very scheme of the Act of 1994 and the public policy on the issue of limitation as evident therein. 13. Such an interpretation of the reasonableness of time to file revision petition u/S. 97 of the Act of 1994 would be dichotomous with the very scheme of the Act of 1994 and the public policy on the issue of limitation as evident therein. 13. I also find substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the order of regularization./allotment initially made on 22.10.1983 and subsequently revived vide order dated 12.9.1995 by the Gram Panchayat, Choth-ka-Barwada having been put to challenge in appeal under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 and the appeal having failed on its dismissal on 27.6.2005, the revising authority ought not to have proceeded to consider challenge to the order dated 20.10.1983 and 12.9.1995 which stood merged in the order dated 22.6.2005 passed by the Administrative Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Sawaimadhopur, the appellate authority. Counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that without amendment to the revision petition and putting the order dated 27.6.2005 passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Sawaimadhopur to challenge, the revision petition was completely misdirected and entailed a situation where there are contradictory orders, both final ounder the statute. I am of the considered view that the fact of dismissal of the appeal on 27.6.2005 having been brought to the notice of the revising authority as is apparent from the impugned order, the revising authority ought to have required the respondents to first amend the revision petition and only thereafter proceeded therewith on merits. 14. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though under the impugned order dated 21.6.2005, the revising authority has remanded the matter to the Panchayat, the said order ought to be interfered with by this Court for the reason that the impugned order gives the litigation relating to the allotment of 20.8.1983/12.9.1995 an undeserved fresh lease of life. Counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Purushottam Reddy and another vs. Pratap Steels Ltd. reported in 2002(2) SCC 686 , wherein the Supreme Court has ennunciated the proposition that the orders of remand in stale matters ought to be eschewed as such orders merely prolong litigation to great inconvenience to the litigants and with the potential of gross in-equities. Reference in this regard can also be had to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshavadas Shridharao Savakar vs. LAO reported in (2011) 11 SCC 476 , where the Supreme Court noting the long lapse of time in the course of litigation, proceeded to adjudicate the issue finally without remanding the matter. 15. On the merits of the matter in this petition, facts in record indicate that not only the petitioner's father and his family members were in occupation of the land in issue for several years and had raised construction thereon prior to the application for regularization moved in 1981, but even thereafter continued to occupy the said house after the regularization/allotment first made on 22.10.1983 and have now been in occupation of the house for about 40 years. All requisite payments as required of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat, Choth-ka-Barwada for the allotment have been made. Further, the petitioner has an order of the appellate authority u/S. 61 of the Act of 1994 passed on 27.6.2005 standing in his favour and which order has not been challenged to any forum and has thus attained finality. Besides, from the order of the revising authority it appears that thee revising authority itself has noted the fact that the site inspection was carried out and objections invited before a decision to regularise possession of the petitioner's father was taken in the meeting held on 22.10.1983. 16. In my considered view, on the aforesaid facts on record the impugned order by the revising authority remanding the matter to the Gram Panchayat was absolutely unwarranted. Instead the revision petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of being filed belatedly without just cause and further also in view of the fact that the order dated 27.6.2005 passed in the appeal by the Administrative Committee, Sawaimadhopur had not been put to any challenge. 17. I, therefore, would allow this writ petition and quash and set aside the order dated 21.6.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur. 18. The petition stands allowed accordingly. The stay application also stands decided similarly.