Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1064 (RAJ)

Todar Ram v. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat

2012-04-25

ARUN MISHRA, KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2012
Hon'ble JOSHI, J.—Defects pointed out by the office are waived. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The intra court appeals have been preferred as against the order dt.5.1.2012 passed in SBCWP Nos.12497/2011 and 12566/2011. The appellant-petitioner claimed that he was holder of patta of the land in question, whereas some portion of the land in question has been allotted by the Gram Panchayat for construction of Sub Health Centre at the village in question on 19.3.2007 and 500 sq. yards land was allotted in favour of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kuchaur Aguni, which includes the area of plot purchased by the appellant-petitioner. It was also submitted that the plot could not have been allotted by the Gram Panchayat in favour of Sub Health Centre free of charge in terms of R.162 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, in short "the Rules". It was open to allot the land free of charge upto 500 sq. yards only. The revisional authority has given a finding that the receipt produced by the appellant-petitioner of the land held by him, does not give description of the plot, nor there is any reference of the patta alleged to have been issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of Chandu Ram of the plot in question. The receipt was held to be inadmissible in evidence, as it was insufficient to prove identity with the land in question. The land had been allotted by the Gram Panchayat for the aforesaid purpose after following the due procedure. The allotment made is in conformity with Rule 162 of the Rules. 3. The writ application has been dismissed on the ground that the receipt dt.4.5.49 alleged to have been executed by Chandu Ram in favour of the appellant-petitioner as Annex.2, reveals that in no manner, it relates to the plot in question, patta whereof has been issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of Chandu Ram on 28.8.73. The receipt produced by the appellant-petitioner neither contains the description of the plot nor the details of the patta issued in favour of Chandu Ram. Thus, the finding of the revisional authority that on the basis of the receipt produced it is not proved that the appellant-petitioner had purchased the plot in question from Chandu Ram on 4.5.79, is perfectly justified. With regard to submission that allotment of plot measuring 600 sq. Thus, the finding of the revisional authority that on the basis of the receipt produced it is not proved that the appellant-petitioner had purchased the plot in question from Chandu Ram on 4.5.79, is perfectly justified. With regard to submission that allotment of plot measuring 600 sq. yards free of charge was contrary to Rule 162 of the Rules, it has been held that the Gram Panchayat was empowered to allot land free of charge only upto 500 sq. yards. The land has been allotted for the Govt. Sub Health Centre. It is not the case of the appellant-petitioner that the allotment has been made without prior approval of the State Government. Allotment cannot be said be de hors the Rules. Hence, the writ application has been dismissed, resulting into filing of the intra court appeals. 4. Mr. R.K. Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner, has submitted that the finding in respect of the receipt dt.4.5.79 is not correct as well as it was not open to allot more than 500 sq. yards land free of charge under Rule 162 of the Rules. 5. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner, we are of the opinion that the appellant-petitioner has not been able to establish the identity of the receipt dt.4.5.79 with the land in question. Thus, he could not have questioned the allotment of the land made for the purpose of Sub Health Centre at the village in question, which is in the public interest. Under Rule 162 of the Rules, the land can be allotted free of charge. It is not the case of the appellantpetitioner that the allotment was made without approval of the State Government. In case, some more land has been allotted, appellant-petitioner has no locus to question it, the purpose being in public interest. 6. We find no ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Single Bench. 7. Resultantly, the intra court appeals, being bereft of any force, stand dismissed. The stay applications are also dismissed.