Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 566 (RAJ)

Sukh Ram v. District Collector, Churu

2014-02-26

AMITAVA ROY, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 04.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.419/2004, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant while challenging the order dated 24.12.2003 passed by the District Collector, Churu in a revision petition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been dismissed. 2. The case as set up by the appellant before the learned Single Judge is that he was in possession of a portion of abadi land situated in village Dhani Subhram (Hamirwas) by constructing a residential house on it. On 05.04.2002, he moved an application in the Gram Panchayat, Hamirwas for issuance of a patta in respect of the land in question on the basis of his old possession, however, the Gram Panchayat has refused to issue patta in favour of the appellant on the ground that for the land in question, a patta is already issued in the name of public chowk by the erstwhile panchayat. The appellant, thereafter, moved an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti, Churu with a prayer for quashing the patta issued in the name of public chowk. The said appeal was allowed by the Panchayat Samiti and the patta dated 07.01.1998 issued in the name of public chowk has been quashed and a direction was issued by the Gram Panchayat to issue patta in the name of the appellant in respect of the land in question. The said decision of the Panchayat Samiti, Churu dated 15.11.2002 was challenged by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the District Collector, Churu and District Collector, Churu while exercising powers under section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994' hereinafter) has allowed the said revision petition and quashed the order of the Panchayat Samiti dated 15.11.2002. 3. The order passed by the District Collector, Churu dated 24.12.2003 was challenged by the appellant by way of the aforesaid writ petition, however, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 04.07.2007, while holding that no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the District Collector. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is in possession of the land in question from last so many years and as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996' hereinafter), he is entitled for issuance of a patta in his favour for the land in question on the basis of his old possession. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the patta said to have been issued in the name of public chowk was a forged one because the procedure provided under the Rules of 1996, for the issuance of the patta, has not at all been followed. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Collector, Churu as well as the learned Single Judge have altogether ignored the fact that the appellant is in possession of the land in question from last so many years and before issuance of the patta in the name of public chowk for the land in question, the procedure, as laid down under the Rules of 1996, has not been followed. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in affirming the findings of the District Collector given in the impugned order dated 24.12.2003 though the material placed on record by the appellant along with the writ petition suggests otherwise. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2007 as also the order passed by the District Collector dated 24.12.2003 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Panchayat Samiti dated 15.11.2002 may kindly be affirmed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. The District Collector, while passing the order dated 24.12.2003, has observed that the record of the Gram Panchayat pertaining to the issuance of the patta of public chowk was produced before him and after taking into consideration the same, the District Collector has observed that the Gram Panchayat has issued the said patta in the name of the public chowk after following due procedure. It is also noticed that despite a clear assertion and production of documentary evidence before the Panchayat Samiti, Churu on behalf of respondent Nos. It is also noticed that despite a clear assertion and production of documentary evidence before the Panchayat Samiti, Churu on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the effect that the Gram Panchayat has issued patta in the name of public chowk after following due procedure, the Panchayat Samiti in its order dated 15.11.2002 has given a finding that the record pertaining to the issuance of the patta in the name of public chowk is not produced before it. The District Collector as well as the learned Single Judge have considered this aspect of the matter and given a finding that the Panchayat Samiti has ignored the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the issuance of the patta in the name of public chowk and, therefore, the order passed by the Panchayat Samiti dated 15.11.2002 is perverse. The District Collector and the learned Single Judge have also given a finding that the appellant has failed to prove his old possession over the land in question. Even before this Court, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to produce any evidence regarding his old possession except the report of the Panchayat Samiti prepared by it before passing of the order dated 15.11.2002. 8. After critically analyzing the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the District Collector and the material placed on record, we are of the opinion that the District Collector as well as the learned Single Judge have passed detailed and reasoned orders after taking into consideration each and every aspect of the matter. Hence, we are not convinced to take a different view. 9. Consequently, the instant appeal being devoid of any force is, hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******