Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 781 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-04-07

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 31.12.12 passed by the District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner questioning the legality of patta dated 28.5.12, issued in favour of the respondent Smt. Parwati Devi, by Gram Panchayat, Tharoda, stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was issued a patta of the land ad measuring 17860 sq. ft. situated in Naya Gaon (Manikya Nagar) by Gram Panchayat, Tharoda, on 28.8.86, which was duly registered on 10.1.91. The petitioner proceeded to raise construction over the plot after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, however, the construction sought to be raised was obstructed by the respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi, claiming title over a portion of the said plot measuring 50x50 sq. ft., on the strength of the patta issued in her favour by the Gram Panchayat on 7.3.67. The petitioner questioned the legality of the patta issued in favour of respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi by way of a revision petition before the Additional District Collector, Bhilwara. The revision petition was allowed by the revisional authority vide order dated 3.8.03 and the patta issued in favour of the respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi was cancelled and the matter was remanded to the Gram Panchayat, Tharoda to ensure the disposal of the said abadi land in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,1994. 3. The respondent- Smt. Parwati Devi also filed a revision petition questioning the legality of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner herein, which stood allowed by the Additional District Collector, Bhilwara vide a separate order dated 13.8.03 and the patta issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the matter was remanded to the Gram Panchayat, Tharoda for disposal of the plot in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 4. Aggrieved by order dated 13.8.03 passed by the revisional authority cancelling the patta issued in his favour, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being No.555/03 before this court, wherein on 13.10.03, this court while issuing notices to the respondents, directed the parties to maintain the status quo. Later, the writ petition was admitted by this court vide order dated 19.7.06 and the interim order dated 13.10.03 stands confirmed till the final disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition is alleged to be pending consideration before this court. 5. Later, the writ petition was admitted by this court vide order dated 19.7.06 and the interim order dated 13.10.03 stands confirmed till the final disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition is alleged to be pending consideration before this court. 5. It is pertinent to note that respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi had filed a civil suit being No.21/99 before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction against the petitioner and one Shri Pisilal for permanent and mandatory injunction for removal of construction as also for possession of the plot in question, which stood dismissed by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.09. 6. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner as aforesaid, questioning the legality of cancellation of patta issued in his favour, the matter with regard to disposal of the land covered by the patta issued in favour of respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi, which stood cancelled as aforesaid, was taken up for consideration by the Gram Panchayat. On 20.9.03, the Gram Panchayat, resolved to issue patta of the plot ad measuring 50x50 sq. ft., in favour of respondent-Smt.Parwati Devi, subject to approval of the Administration & Establishment Committee of Panchayat Samiti, Mandalgarh for consideration of Rs.1,26,000/-, under the provisions of Rule 157(2) of the Rules of 1996. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the District Collector, Bhilwara. The revision petition has been dismissed by the District Collector, Bhilwara on the grounds; firstly, that the revision petition preferred is barred by limitation inasmuch as, the revision petition has been filed in the year 2012 in context of the revision petition of the year 2003 and secondly, on the ground that the matter with regard to the legality of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner, which stands cancelled by the revisional authority, the matter is pending before this court. 8. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the patta issued in favour of respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi in the year 1967 stood cancelled by the revisional authority vide order dated 13.8.03 and the matter was remanded to the Gram Panchayat for disposal of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1994 and therefore, the limitation in respect of the revision petition preferred questioning the legality of the patta issued in the year 2012 after approval of the Administration & Establishment Committee of Panchayat Samiti, Mandalgarh, vide resolution dated 15.5.12, the question of counting the period of limitation from the year 2003, does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that no limitation is provided for filing revision petition under Section 97 of the Act and therefore, the revisional authority has seriously erred in assuming the limitation for filing the revision petition to be three years. Learned counsel submitted that by way of writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of cancellation of the patta issued in his favour and therefore, on that count, the petitioner is not precluded from questioning the legality of the patta issued in favour of the respondent no.3 pursuant to the remand order passed by the revisional authority, moreso when the land patta whereof is issued as aforesaid, forms part of the land of the petitioner in respect whereof of an interim order passed by this court in his favour is operative. 9. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 submitted that in absence of any limitation provided for filing the revision petition under Section 97 of the Act, the revisional authority has committed no error in assuming the limitation for filing the revision petition to be three years. Learned counsel submitted that the matter with regard to the cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioner being pending consideration before this court, the revisional authority has committed no error in refusing to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel submitted that the matter with regard to the cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioner being pending consideration before this court, the revisional authority has committed no error in refusing to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. Indisputably, by way of revision petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of patta issued in favour of the respondent no.5 by the revisional authority, pursuant to the order dated 13.8.03 passed by the revisional authority in exercise of the power conferred under Section 97 of the Act, whereby the patta issued in favour of the respondent no.5 was ordered to be cancelled and the Gram Panchayat, Tharoda was directed to dispose of the disputed land after following the procedure laid down under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. It is true that the Gram Panchayat, Tharoda, resolved to issue patta in favour of the petitioner on 20.9.03 but then, the same was subject to the approval by the Panchayat Samiti, Mandalgarh. It is not in dispute that the Administration & Establishment Committee of Panchayat Samiti granted the approval vide resolution no.2 adopted in its meeting held on 15.5.12 and pursuant thereto, the patta was issued in favour of the petitioner on 28.5.12. As a matter of fact, no limitation has been provided for filing the revision petition, yet if the limitation of period of three years is applied, the revision petition filed by the petitioner could not have been considered as barred by limitation inasmuch as, the cause of action in the matter, shall relate to the date of issuance of the patta and not the date on which the resolution was adopted by the Gram Panchayat to issue the patta in favour of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that even the original patta issued in favour of the respondent-Smt.Parwati Devi in the year 1967, was set aside by the revisional authority while entertaining a revision petition filed in the year 1999 and thus, viewed from any angle, the order passed by the revisional authority dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner as barred of limitation, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. 12. Coming to the question of pendency of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner before this court, it is not in dispute that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.03 passed by the revisional authority in Revision Petition No.13/99, whereby while allowing the revision petition preferred by the respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi, a patta of the land ad measuring 17860 sq. ft. issued in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat, Tharoda, on 2.10.86 has been cancelled. As a matter of fact, even the disputed plot, the patta whereof has been issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of respondent-Smt.Parwati Devi pursuant to the remand order dated 13.8.03 passed by the revisional authority in Revision Petition No.11/99, is alleged to be the part of the land, patta whereof was issued in favour of the petitioner, which stands cancelled by the revisional authority vide order dated 13.8.13 passed in Revision Petition No.13/99, which is impugned in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner before this court. In this view of the matter, the pendency of the writ petition preferred the petitioner, cannot operate as bar for entertaining the revision petition questioning the legality of the patta issued in favour of respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi, pursuant to the order dated 13.8.03 passed by the revisional authority. Rather, since the claim of the petitioner regarding the land in question, which includes the land, patta whereof is issued in favour of respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi, is sub judice before this court, the petitioner has every right to question the legality of patta issued in favour of respondent-Smt. Parwati Devi. 13. In view of the discussion above, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and the matter deserves to be remanded to the revisional authority for decision afresh, on merits, in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 31.12.12 passed by the District Collector, Bhilwara in Revision Petition No.167/12 is set aside. The matter shall stand remanded to the District Collector, Bhilwara for decision afresh, on merits, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.