Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2155 (RAJ)

Prabhat v. District Collector, Bhilwara (raj. )

2017-10-05

GOVIND MATHUR, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT Govind Mathur, J. - This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the judgment dated 09.09.2016 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2016, Prabhat vs. District Collector, Bhilwara & Ors. 2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat, Bijoliya decided to sale a piece of land to one Shri Mangi Lal Sharma in accordance with Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, but he died on 28.09.1999 before issuance of a Patta by the Gram Panchayat. After death of Shri Mangi Lal Sharma, the Patta was issued in the name of the petitioner on 22.06.2004. To challenge the Patta granted on 22.06.2004, the legal representatives of Late Shri Mangi Lal except the present appellant-petitioner preferred a revisionpetition before the Collector, Bhilwara in accordance with Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (for short, "the Act of 1994"). The revision petition aforesaid came to be accepted under a judgment dated 03.08.2016. The Collector Bhilwara while accepting the revision petition held that Patta could have not been issued in favour of the appellant-petitioner only in view of the fact that the property concerned was vested with all legal heirs of Shri Mangi Lal. 3. To challenge the judgment dated 03.08.2016, the appellant preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned. 4. On being failed to have any relief by the writ Court, the appellant-petitioner preferred the instant appeal which was referred for Mediation under an order dated 02.08.2017. 5. As per the report of Mediation dated 08.09.2017, the parties settled their dispute by arriving at a compromise. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed on record a deed of compromise, recital of which are as follows: 7. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondents fairly submit before us that the parties are abide by the compromise quoted above. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by maintaining the order dated 03.08.2016 but settling the dispute between the parties as per the compromise arrived between them on 06.09.2017. The photocopy of the compromise is also placed on record and the same has been signed by the counsels appearing on behalf of appellant as well as of respondents. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to treat the same as an authentic copy of the compromise. The photocopy of the compromise is also placed on record and the same has been signed by the counsels appearing on behalf of appellant as well as of respondents. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to treat the same as an authentic copy of the compromise. The original deed of compromise is returned to learned counsel for the appellant. 9. While parting with the matter we would like to mention that affirmation of the order passed by the Collector, Bhilwara will not preclude the appellant or any party concerned from challenging the same to the extent that gives direction for lodging criminal proceedings against them.