Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 996 (RAJ)

Prakash Chandra v. District Collector, Bhilwara

2016-07-14

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.9.2013 of the Additional District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby while allowing the revision petition preferred by the second respondent herein, under Section 97 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act"), a patta of a plot issued by the Gram Panchayat, Umaji Ka Kheda, in favour of the petitioner, stands cancelled. 2. The revisional authority has arrived at the finding that the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat does not disclose as to why instead of putting the disputed plot to auction, the same was sold in favour of the petitioner herein by private negotiation under Rule 156 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the plot in question was sold by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner after following the due process of law for the price determined on the basis of existing DLC rate and thus, the revisional authority has seriously erred in setting aside the patta, without there being any justifiable reason. Learned Counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the revision petitioner had preferred an application for withdrawal of the revision petition but without deciding the said application, the revision petition was allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that as per the provisions of the Rules, ordinarily, the abadi land can only be sold through public auction but, in the instant case, without there being anything on record suggesting that the conditions provided for under Rule 156 of the Rules are satisfied, the Gram Panchayat, proceeded to sale the plot in question to the petitioner by private negotiation. Learned AGC submitted that besides the petitioner, his family members have also been granted pattas of the plots in the same manner without following the procedure laid down. Learned Counsel would submit that the State Government is empowered to exercise the power of revision and review under Section 97 of the Act and therefore, nothing turns on the question that the revisional authority did not permit the revision petitioner to withdraw the revision petition and decided the same on merits. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, in the instant case, the disputed plot has been sold by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner by private negotiation under Rule 156 of the Rules, which reads as under: "Rule 156. Transfer of Abadi land by private negotiation.-(1) The Panchayat may transfer any Abadi Iand 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 an auction may not fetch reasonable price; (b) Where there is a trespass or for any other reason to be recorded in writing, Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land; (c) Where it is strip of land as per sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 144 and there is only one applicant. (2) In no case such Abadi land, shall be transferred on a rate below index price fixed by Sub-Registrar and conveyed by Vikas Adhikari as prevailing market price for the village. (3) Such market price in a bazaar or commercial area shall not be less than, double the price fixed for residential areas." 7. A bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 156 of the Rules 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. 8. 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. 8. A bare perusal of the proceedings alleged to have been taken by the Gram Panchayat placed on record reveals 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. It is to be noticed that in the application preferred the petitioner before the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Umaji Ka Kheda, even does not disclose as to since when he is in possession of the disputed plot and on what basis he claims a plausible title over the same. 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 is in possession of the land in abadi area, Fatehpur and therefore, on depositing the amount payable as per the Rules, the plot may be allotted in his favour and patta may be issued. The site inspection report alleged to have been submitted by the Inspection Committee also does not disclose the duration of the possession of the petitioner over the plot in question. Thus, in absence of any material on record showing long possession of the petitioner over the land in question so as to give rise to plausible claim of title, the decision taken by the Gram Panchayat in straight away issuing patta of the plot in favour of the petitioner presuming his plausible claim of title over the same, is ex facie contrary to the provisions of the Rules. 9. 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 Gram Panchayat to come to the definite conclusion on the basis of the material on record that the applicant claiming the sale of the Abadi land by private negotiation has plausible claim of title to the land. It is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to come to the definite conclusion on the basis of the material on record that the applicant claiming the sale of the Abadi land by private negotiation has plausible claim of title to the land. As a matter of fact, the Gram Panchayat has recorded merely its ipse dixit that the petitioner has claim over the disputed land and the same cannot he allotted to anybody else. That apart, a perusal of the proceedings taken, placed on record reveals that nowhere the Gram Panchayat has recorded its satisfaction that the auction may not fetch reasonable price. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As per the mandate of rule 141 of the Rules, all sales of land by Gram Panchayat are ordinarily required to be made through auction unless there are special reasons for not doing so. Suffice it to say that the Rule 156 of the Rules providing for sale of the land by private negotiation is an exception to the general rule and cannot be resorted to unless and until the mandatory conditions specified therein are fully satisfied and thus, the sale of the plot in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat by private negotiation in absence of any material showing that the petitioner has plausible claim of title to the land, being not sustainable in the eyes of law, the revisional authority has committed no error in cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. 11. A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the application preferred by the revision petitioner seeking withdrawal of the revision petition was considered by the revisional authority, however, on the basis of the material on record, the revisional authority, which is empowered to revise or review any order passed by the Gram Panchayat of its own motion, proceeded to decide the revision petition on merits and thus, the contention of the petitioner that the revisional authority has erred in deciding the revision petition on merits, ignoring the application preferred by the revision petitioner for withdrawal of the revision petition, is devoid of any merit. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, 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. 13. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, 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. 13. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.