Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1211 (RAJ)

Karamjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-23

P.K.LOHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Karamjeet Singh has preferred this writ petition for assailing the impugned order dated 31.01.2014 (Annex. 9) passed by the learned Addl. District Collector (Admn.), Sri Ganganagar, whereby revision petition filed by respondent No. 5 Dr. Kashmeer Dhillon under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (for short, 'Act of 1994) was allowed. Facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that respondent No. 5 Dr. Kashmeer Dhillon laid a revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 challenging allotment of a residential plot measuring 50' x 100' by Gram Panchayat, Sahuwala in favour of petitioner vide Patta Annex. 1 dated 01.10.1990 and its regularisation pursuant to Resolution No. 1 dated 05.05.2013 (Annex. 2) by the Gram Panchayat, inter alia, on the ground that the said land was earlier allotted to her ancestors. It is averred in the revision petition by the fifth respondent that when petitioner Karamjeet Singh staked his claim for ownership on land in question allotted in the name of her ancestors by way of filing an application before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, she came to know that the petitioner in conspiracy with Gram Panchayat got a forged patta issued in his name. With these assertions, the fifth respondent has made endeavour to explain the delay in filing the revision petition. The alleged allotment of land in question in favour of petitioner was questioned by the fifth respondent precisely on the ground that allotment has been made free of cost without adhering to the prescribed procedure and determining eligibility of the petitioner for the said allotment. According to fifth respondent, such allotment is permissible to the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, small and marginal farmers, who do not own any land in their name. Moreover, it is also pleaded in the revision petition that Gram Panchayat can allot residential plot free of cost to certain categories of persons with specific dimensions i.e. 150 sq.yds., whereas the allotted land is approximately 555 sq.yds. which is not permissible under the law. 2. The learned Addl. District Collector (Admn.) Sri Ganganagar, after hearing the rival parties, held that patta issued in favour of petitioner and its subsequent ratification by way of regularisation is illegal and consequently quashed the same by allowing the revision petition. Learned Addl. which is not permissible under the law. 2. The learned Addl. District Collector (Admn.) Sri Ganganagar, after hearing the rival parties, held that patta issued in favour of petitioner and its subsequent ratification by way of regularisation is illegal and consequently quashed the same by allowing the revision petition. Learned Addl. Collector (Admn.) has also observed in the impugned order that Gram Panchayat while passing the order of allotment has not adhered to Rule 267(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules 1961 (for short, 'Rules of 1961') 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the revision was filed after inordinate delay of 13 years and therefore the learned Addl. Collector while passing the impugned' order has committed grave and serious error of law and fact which is apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel submits that although under Section 97 of the Panchayat Raj Act 1994 no period of limitation is prescribed but such inordinate delay cannot be overlooked and therefore exercise of discretion in favour of the fifth respondent is a glaring example of perversity. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. Before adverting to examine the legality of the impugned order, I have carefully examined the alleged Patta issued in favour of petitioner Karamjeet Singh. A bare perusal of Patta Annex. 1 makes it amply clear that it has been issued to the petitioner free of cost by resorting to Rule 267 of the Rules of 1961. That apart, for such allotment in exercise of power under sub-Section (1) of Section 89 of Panchayat Act 1953 certain rules were framed viz., the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Special Allotment of Abadi Land for Residential House Sites to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Landless persons, village Artisans and Small and Marginal Farmers Rules 1975 (for short, 'Rules of 1975'), As per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975, only six categories are eligible for allotment free of charge with a rider that such allotment can be made to a bona fide resident of Rajasthan, who does not own any house site in any Abadi or agricultural land anywhere in Rajasthan in his own name or in the name of any member of his family. The complete text of Rule 3 is reproduced as under: 3. The complete text of Rule 3 is reproduced as under: 3. Eligibility for allotment.-The following categories shall be eligible for allotment free of charge:-- (a) Scheduled Castes, (b) Scheduled Tribes, (c) Landless person, (d) Village Artisans, (e) Small farmers, (f) Marginal farmers, Provided that such a person seeking allotment should be a bona fide resident of Rajasthan and who does not own any House site in any Abadi or Agricultural land anywhere in Rajasthan in his own name or in the name of any member of his family. 6. Under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1975, an applicant seeking allotment under the Rules of 1975 is required to submit a declaration that he has no house or house site anywhere in Rajasthan in his name or in the name of any member of his family. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975 envisages conditions of allotment. Under Clause (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975 it is prescribed with clarity and precision that a plot of 150 sq.yds will be allotted free of charge. 7. Upon examining the alleged allotment of plot and issuance of Patta to the petitioner on the touchstone of the Rules of 1975, it is crystal clear that said allotment is dehors the Rules of 1975. There is apparently no material on record to show that petitioner was eligible within the four corners of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975 for such an allotment. Therefore, on the face of it, the alleged allotment is under serious cloud. Even otherwise, in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975, a plot of 150 sq.yds can be allotted free of charge to an incumbent who is eligible for such allotment. Looking to the size of the plot, such allotment is not permissible within the four corners of Rules of 1975. Thus, in totality of circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order as the learned Addl. Collector while passing the impugned order has set at nought allotment of land in favour of petitioner by concluding that the said allotment suffers from serious legal infirmity being dehors Rule 267 of the Rules of 1961 and also in clear negation of Rules of 1975, and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Collector while passing the impugned order has set at nought allotment of land in favour of petitioner by concluding that the said allotment suffers from serious legal infirmity being dehors Rule 267 of the Rules of 1961 and also in clear negation of Rules of 1975, and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised on equitable considerations and not for perpetuation of illegalities. The allotment, which was illegal and void ab-initio right from inception, in favour of the petitioner, cannot be protected in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Resultantly, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.Petition Dismissed. *******