Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1444 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. Nathuram

2015-08-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the rejection of his objections by the Additional Collector, Pali. 2. The petitioners filed revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 questioning the legality and validity of the Patta issued in name of the respondent No.1. 3. During the pendency of the revision petition, the Nayab Tehsildar, Jaitaran was directed to produce the report pertaining to the site. The Nayab Tehsildar produced his report dated 05.10.2012. Where after the petitioners raised several objections regarding the report, however, the Additional Collector by the impugned order only indicated rejection of the objections and did not record any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the objections, which were several. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Additional Collector was not justified in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners and that also by totally non-speaking order and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents duly supported the order impugned. It was submitted that there was no substance in the objections raised by the petitioners and, therefore, the same were rightly rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. A bare look at the order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the Additional Collector indicates that the said order has been passed without recording any reason whatsoever for rejecting the objections, merely a one line has been stated to indicate the rejection. When several objections were raised by the petitioners regarding the validity of the site report produced by the Nayab Tehsildar, it was incumbent on the Additional Collector to record reasons for not accepting the objections filed by the petitioners. 8. In absence whereof, the order impugned passed by the Additional Collector cannot be sustained. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Pali is set aside and the Additional Collector is directed to re-decide the objections filed by the petitioners and pass a speaking order without being influenced by order dated 02.11.2012 and the order passed in the writ petition.