Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1514 (RAJ)

Tulsi Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 22.5.1996 passed by the Additional Collector, Chittorgarh, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act ('the Act') has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was allotted land under the 'Garib Ko Chhaper Scheme' and it appears that by order dated 14.5.1993 passed by the Vikas Adhikari, the said allotment was cancelled holding that the petitioner was not eligible. Along with the petitioner, allotment of several other allottees were also cancelled. 3. Based on order dated 14.5.1993 passed by the Vikas Adhikari, the Gram Panchayat, Dungla by its order dated 15.5.1993 directed the petitioner to remove his possession from allotted land. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector by its order dated 22.5.1996 rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner on coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the Vikas Adhikari/Gram Panchayat was justified. 5. The petitioner filed the present writ petition and initially the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 11.5.1998 on account of delay and latches. However, when the matter was taken up before the Division Bench by order dated 5.8.2008 passed in DBSAW No.701/98, the matter was remanded back. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 15.5.1993 passed by the Gram Panchayat was challenged by other similarly situated persons and the Additional Collector by order dated 6.9.1994 (Annex.6) allowed the revision petitions by holding that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice. However, in the petitioner's case, who is similarly situated, the Additional Collector has dismissed the revision petition. 7. It is submitted that violation of principles of natural justice is on its face visible in the circumstances wherein no notice was issued to the petitioner and consequently, no opportunity of hearing was granted and therefore, the order dated 22.5.1996 passed by the Additional Collector cannot be sustained. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the remand order dated 6.9.1994 passed in the case of similarly situated persons, notices were issued to them. However, on their non-appearance, the cancellation has been upheld and therefore, the petitioner, who claims to be similarly situated cannot maintain the present writ petition. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the remand order dated 6.9.1994 passed in the case of similarly situated persons, notices were issued to them. However, on their non-appearance, the cancellation has been upheld and therefore, the petitioner, who claims to be similarly situated cannot maintain the present writ petition. 9. Further submissions have been made on the merit of the controversy inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner was already allotted a free land vide Annexure-R/1 and therefore, he was not entitled under the 'Garib Ko Chhaper Scheme' and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be sustained and no useful purpose would be served in remanding back the matter. 10. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. From a bare perusal of the order dated 6.9.1994 (Annex.6) passed by the Additional Collector in the case of similarly situated persons, it is apparent that on account of violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the allottees were not issued any notice by the Vikas Adhikari before passing the order dated 14.5.1993, the revision petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to Vikas Adhikari. 12. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a similarly situated person, inasmuch as, he was allotted land under the Scheme along with the other persons and by order dated 14.5.1993, the Vikas Adhikari cancelled the allotment along with other allottees. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where the order passed against similar allottees were set-aside by the Additional Collector, the petitioner was also entitled to a similar treatment and the rejection of the revision petition vide order dated 22.5.1996 (Annex.3) by the Additional Collector cannot be sustained. 13. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents regarding upholding of cancellation of remand regarding similarly situated persons is concerned, vide Annex.- R/3/2 is apparent that the said similarly situated persons chose not to appear, which resulted in passing of ex-parte order and such order cannot be relied on for the purpose of non-suiting the petitioner in the present writ petition as the said orders were not passed on merits. 14. 14. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents on merits of the dispute is concerned, it is for the concerned authority to examine the dispute on merits and the order which was passed by the Vikas Adhikari in gross violation of the principle of natural justice cannot be justified in the present proceedings. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 14.5.1993 passed by the Vikas Adhikari; order dated 15.5.1993 passed by the Gram Panchayat and order dated 22.5.1996 passed by the Additional Collector are set-aside. 16. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti Dungla, District Chittorgarh to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and where after passed a fresh order. The matter has been remanded back to the Standing Committee as on account of repeal of the previous Act by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the power now vests with the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee would decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Standing Committee. 17. During the pendency of the writ petition, it was directed on 12.1.2009 for the parties to maintain status quo. Till the matter is decided by the Standing Committee, the status quo would be maintained by both the parties.Petition allowed. *******