Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 47 (RAJ)

Barkat Alias Bargad v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-08

AMITAVA ROY, JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1927/2002 dismissing the impeachment of the order dated 14.5.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Jalore. 2. We have heard Mr. Paramveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. R.S.D. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondents no.4 and 5. 3. Filtering out the unnecessary details, the facts unavoidably essential for the disposal of the appeal are that according to appellant, he was in possession of plot of land bearing survey no.390 situated in Kanwalanadi Colony, Ahore, which he got converted under the Rajasthan Land Conversion Rules, 1981 vide order dated 14.1.1983 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalore. He, thereafter, constructed houses over it. That soon thereafter, the original respondent no.4 (since deceased) and the respondent no.5 trespassed upon the land comprising a path way belonging to him by constructing pillars thereon. These respondents, however, lodged a false complaint before the jurisdictional Gram Panchayat, which issued a notice to him. Eventually, the Gram Panchayat, Ahore by its order dated 12.7.1996 directed him to remove the encroachment on the way allegedly made by him on the southern side of his house. On appeal by him, the jurisdictional Panchayat Samiti reversed this finding of the Gram Panchayat. Being aggrieved, the respondents no.4 and 5 filed a revision petition before the Additional Collector, Jalore, who by his order dated 14.5.2002 restored the verdict of the Gram Panchayat, Ahore. 4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the Panchayat Samiti, as a final forum of facts, having rightly interfered with the decision of the Gram Panchayat, Ahore on an appropriate analysis of the attendant facts and circumstances, the Additional Collector, Jalore, as the revisional court, ought not to have reversed this determination on a re-appreciation of the evidence on record. It was alleged as well that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to examine the complaint of alleged trespass by the appellant writ- petitioner as made by the respondents no.4 and 5. 5. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the materials on record, rejected the plea of want of jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat on the ground that no such endeavour had been made at any earlier point of time. 5. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the materials on record, rejected the plea of want of jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat on the ground that no such endeavour had been made at any earlier point of time. On an analysis of the facts otherwise available on records and bearing on the controversy between the parties, it was held as well that the exercise undertaken by the Panchayat Samiti and the decision arrived at were not sustainable in law and on facts. The determination made by the Additional Collector, Jalore was thus sustained. 6. It has been emphatically urged before us on behalf of the appellant with particular reference to Section 50 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the First Schedule appended thereto that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the complaint of the respondents no.4 and 5 alleging trespass on their land by the appellant-writ-petitioner and thus, the order of the Additional Collector, Jalore was non est in law. As according to learned counsel, the dispute even if real and existing was a private one and the Gram Panchayat was not empowered to decide the same in view of the express limitations on its powers vide Section 50 of the Act read with First Schedule thereof, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with. 7. We have analyzed the facts as well as documents on record. To be specific, the only argument advanced before us has been, to reiterate, lack of jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat in deciding the complaint of respondents no.4 and 5. 8. Section 50 of the Act reads as hereunder:- "50. Functions and powers of Panchayat: Subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Government from time to time, the Panchayat shall perform the functions and exercise the powers specified in the First Schedule." The general functions and powers of the Panchayats as listed under the First Schedule to the Act deserve extraction as hereunder:- "I. General Functions: (i) preparation of annual plans for the development of the panchayat area; (ii) preparation of annual budget; (iii) mobilising reliefs in natural calamities; (iv) removal of encroachments on public properties." 9. A bare perusal of the order dated 12.7.1996 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Ahore discloses a finding on the basis of spot verification of the disputed area that the land involved is a public road. In that view of the matter, in the face of above quoted clause (iv) of First Schedule outlining the general functions and powers of the Gram Panchayat under the Act, the plea of lack of jurisdiction is per se untenable and is thus rejected. We find on a perusal of the impugned judgment and order that the learned Single Judge has elaborately examined all relevant factual aspects even otherwise to reject contentions of the appellant on merits. 10. On a cumulative consideration of all above, we are disinclined to intervene in the present appeal. 11. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******