Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 576 (RAJ)

RAJU CHEETA v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BHILWARA

2015-03-04

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
Judgment 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 19.11.14 of the District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent no. 2 herein, assailing the validity of patta of the disputed land, issued by the Gram Panchayat, Arazia in favour of the petitioner has been allowed and consequently, the patta issued in favour of the petitioner, stands cancelled. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that the petitioner made an application to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Arazia for issuing the patta of the land alleged to be in his possession, used as 'bara' for tying the cattle and storing the cattle food. It is averred that after following the procedure laid down, the Gram Panchayat its meeting held on 4.11.96 resolved to issue patta of the land in question in favour of the petitioner, who deposited the cost of the land a sum of Rs.1302/-on 31.3.97 and accordingly, patta was issued in his favour. It appears that in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 20.1.14, a resolution was adopted to renew the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and get it registered. 3. At this stage, after a lapse of about 17 years, the respondent preferred a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, questioning the legality of the patta of the plot in question issued in favour of the petitioner, without following the procedure laid down and realising the market value thereof. 4. The revisional authority arrived at the finding that the patta issued in favour of the petitioner at the meagre price of 20 paise per sq. feet, de hors the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules of 1996”) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the patta issued has been cancelled. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the decision to issue patta in favour of the petitioner was taken by the Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 4.11.96, after following the procedure laid down under the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. Accordingly, the patta issued has been cancelled. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the decision to issue patta in favour of the petitioner was taken by the Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 4.11.96, after following the procedure laid down under the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. Learned counsel submitted that the patta was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1997 but the proceedings for issuing the patta was concluded by the Panchayat by adopting resolution dated 4.11.96 and therefore, the revisional authority has seriously erred in holding the patta issued in favour of the petitioner as illegal, while relying upon the provisions of the Rules of 1996, which have come into force w.e.f. 30.12.96. Learned counsel submitted that the legality of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner was required to be examined taking into consideration the rules in force at the relevant time. Learned counsel submitted that the revisional authority has seriously erred in entertaining the challenge to the patta after a lapse of 17 years. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, as on the date the petitioner submitted the application to the Gram Panchayat and till the date the resolution was adopted by the Gram Panchayat, for issuing patta of the land in question in favour of the petitioner, the Rules of 1996 had not come into force and therefore, the transfer of the lands of the Gram Panchayat at the relevant time was governed by the Rules of 1961. 8. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the plot in question by way of auction rather, he claimed patta thereof on the strength of possession over the same and accordingly, the land has been sold by Gram Panchayat in his favour by way of private negotiation. 9. At the relevant time, under the Rules of 1961, the transfer of the land by private negotiation was governed by the provisions of Rule 266 of the Rules, which may be beneficially quoted: “Rule 266. 9. At the relevant time, under the Rules of 1961, the transfer of the land by private negotiation was governed by the provisions of Rule 266 of the Rules, which may be beneficially quoted: “Rule 266. Transfer of abadi land by private negotiation.-(1) The Panchayat may transfer any abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation in the following cases:- (a) Where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and as auction may not fetch reasonable price; (b) where for reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the land; (c) where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes or other backward classes. (d) where the persons are in possession of the abadi land for 20 years or more but less than 42 years, one-third of the prevailing market price and in case of possession of over 40 years, one sixth of the prevailing market-price shall be charged. (2) The Panchayat may, by resolution, transfer by way of sale without charging any price therefor, any abadi land of which the probable value does not excess Rs.200/-in favour of any institution for a public purpose.” 10. A bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 266 of the Rules of 1961 makes it abundantly clear that for invoking the power conferred on Panchayat for transfer of Abadi land by private negotiation, there are two conditions precedent; firstly, the person asking for the sale of land by private negotiation must have plausible claim of title to the land and secondly, the Panchayat must come to a definite conclusion that the land claimed to be sold by private negotiation may not fetch reasonable price if the same is put to auction. It goes without saying that a plausible claim of title to the land pre supposes the existence of some material on record to show that the person asking for the patta has acquired a reasonable claim of title under the law though he may not be in position to establish his clear title. Further, the proceedings must reflect that having considered the matter in its entirety and objectivity the Panchayat was satisfied that if the land sought to be sold by private negotiation is put to auction, the same may not fetch reasonable price. 11. Further, the proceedings must reflect that having considered the matter in its entirety and objectivity the Panchayat was satisfied that if the land sought to be sold by private negotiation is put to auction, the same may not fetch reasonable price. 11. The proceedings alleged to have been taken by the Gram Panchayat placed on record, reveal that no such exercise was at all undertaken by the Gram Panchayat while issuing the patta of the Abadi land in question in favour of the petitioner. As noticed by the revisional authority, the application submitted by the petitioner does not disclose as to since when he was in possession of the land. Besides, the specifications of the land alleged to be in possession of the petitioner herein were also not set out in the application made as aforesaid. All that has been mentioned by the petitioner in the said application is that he intends to get patta of the bara in his possession. The total area of the plot in respect whereof, issuance of the patta was prayed for, was not mentioned in the application filed. The period for which the petitioner is alleged to be in possession of the plot was not disclosed in the application filed and it has not come on record even otherwise during the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat. Thus, in absence of any material on record about the long possession of the petitioner over the lands in question so as to give rise to plausible claim of title, the decision taken by the Panchayat to straight away issue patta in favour of the petitioner presuming the plausible claim of title of the petitioner, is ex facie contrary to the provisions of the relevant Rules. It is also relevant to mention here that merely because, a notice was issued and no objections were received, it cannot lead to a conclusion that the petitioner's old possession over the land in dispute stand established. It is the duty of the Panchayat to come to the definite conclusion on the basis of the material on record that the applicants claiming the sale of the Abadi land by private negotiation have plausible claim of title to the land. That apart, a perusal of the proceedings placed on record reveals that nowhere the Panchayat has recorded its satisfaction that the auction may not fetch reasonable price. 12. That apart, a perusal of the proceedings placed on record reveals that nowhere the Panchayat has recorded its satisfaction that the auction may not fetch reasonable price. 12. Further, as per provisions of Rule 266(1)(d), where the person in possession of the Abadi land for 20 years or more but less than 42 years, 1/3rd of the prevailing market price and in case of possession of over 40 years , 1/6th of prevailing market price shall be charged. Thus, before transferring the land by private negotiation and issuing pattas, the Gram Panchayat was under an obligation to ascertain the prevailing market price so as to determine the amount to be charged from the petitioner against the transfer of the Abadi land in terms of Rule 266 of the Rules of 1961. It is apparent on the face of record that no such exercise was ever taken by the Gram Panahayat and the huge land ad measuring 26045.29 sq. ft., situated at just 100 ft. away from the National Highway, has been transferred in favour of the petitioner for just a throw away price i.e. 5 paise per sq. ft. (wrongly mentioned in the order impugned as 20 paise per sq. ft.). Thus, it is a glaring case of grabbing the public land with the encouragement and support of office bearers of the local authority. 13. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel that the petition filed for assailing the patta issued after lapse of about 17 years should have been dismissed on this count alone, suffice it to say that the allotment of the land belonging to local authority or Government obtained without any lawful entitlement by playing fraud, is void and no limitation should come in the way of the authority competent to cancel such allotment. 14. 14. Thus, viewed from any angle, this court is firmly of the opinion that though, the revisional authority has examined the legality of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner relying upon the Rules of 1996, but then, as discussed hereinabove even as per the provisions of the Rules of 1961, the patta issued in favour of the petitioner is ex facie illegal and therefore, the order impugned passed by the revisional authority does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is always exercised for the sake of justice. 15. In the result, the writ petition fails, the same is hereby dismissed. 16. A copy of this order may be sent to the District Collector,