Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 885 (RAJ)

Budhmal v. Additional District Collector, Jalore

2017-04-04

SANGEET LODHA

body2017
ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 27.2.17 of Additional District Collector, Jalore, whereby a patta of a plot issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner herein stands cancelled in exercise of the power conferred under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act"). 2. The petitioner made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Sayala, claiming patta of residential plot alleged to be in his possession for years together. The application preferred was processed by the Gram Panchayat, Sayala under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). After due consideration, the Gram Panchayat resolved to issue patta in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.260/-, while regularising his possession over the land, patta of the plot ad measuring 225 sq. ft. was issued in his favour under Rule 157 of the Rules. The legality of the patta issued was questioned by the second respondent herein by way of revision petition preferred under Section 97 of the Act before the Additional District Collector, Jalore. The revision petition has been allowed by the revisional authority and patta issued in favour of the petitioner stands cancelled. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the patta has been issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner after following the procedure laid down. Learned counsel submitted that the property in question was in possession of petitioner's predecessor and subsequently, by virtue of written family settlement dated 31.12.94, the said property came into share of the petitioner. Learned counsel while drawing the attention of the court to the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat, submitted that before issuing the patta, Gram Panchayat invited the objections by issuing notice, however, no objections were received and thus, after obtaining the site inspection report taking into consideration the long possession of the petitioner, patta issued under Rule 157 of the Rules, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the respondent no.2 claimed his right over the plot in question and therefore, there was no occasion for the revisional authority to examine the legality of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner at the instance of the respondent no.2 on the ground of alleged violation of provisions of the Rules. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 5. Indisputably, in the instant case, the petitioner claimed patta of the plot in question on the strength of his alleged old possession of residential house constructed thereon. Rule 157 of the Rules, which deals with regularisation of the old houses as it existed at the relevant time when the patta was issued in favour of the petitioner herein may be beneficially quoted : "Rule 157. Regularisation of old houses.- Where the persons are in possession of the old house in Abadi land and desire to get a Patta issued, may be issued by the Panchayat after depositing charges as under :- (a) For old houses constructed more than fifty years ago Rs.100/- (b) For old houses constructed during last fifty years from the date of commencement of these rules; Rs.200/- Provided that no fees shall be charged under Clause (a) and only 10% fees shall be charged under Clause (b) from the families included in the list of below poverty line. (2) Families who do not have any house or house site anywhere and are in possession of abadi land by way of construction of a hutment/Kucha house up to year 2003 shall be entitled for regularisation of possession maximum up to 300 yards free of cost. The patta of such land shall be issued in the name of women head of such family." 6. From bare perusal of Rule 157 of the Rules, it is manifestly clear that it permits regularisation where the persons are in possession of the old house in abadi land and desire to get a patta issued. It further provides that for old houses constructed more than 50 years ago, the patta may be issued by depositing Rs.100/- and for old house constructed during last 50 years from commencement of the Rules i.e. 30.12.96, the patta may be issued on depositing charges Rs.200/-. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that the building constructed over the disputed plot is a shop and not the residential house. In this regard, the inspection report alleged to have been submitted by the Inspection Committee placed on record is self explanatory. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that the building constructed over the disputed plot is a shop and not the residential house. In this regard, the inspection report alleged to have been submitted by the Inspection Committee placed on record is self explanatory. The factum of the premises in question being a shop even not disputed by the petitioner herein in reply to the revision petition filed before the Revisional Authority rather, it is specifically admitted that as a result of family partition in the year 1994, the shop in question came in the share of the petitioner herein. As noticed herein above, Rule 157 of the Rules permits regularisation of possession of the old house in abadi land and not any commercial construction. In this view of the matter, the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat for grant of patta in favour of the petitioner under Rule 157 of the Rules, are ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. A perusal of the revision petition preferred by the respondent no.2 reveals that while claiming the right over the disputed land, the legality of patta issued in favour of the petitioner herein was questioned by the respondent no.2 on the ground of the procedure laid down under the Rules being not followed so also on the ground that the patta has been obtained by the petitioner by committing fraud inasmuch as, a shop constructed was shown to be a residential house. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that revisional authority could not have examined legality of patta on account of alleged violation of the procedure laid down, is devoid of any merit. Moreover, under Section 97 of the Act, the revisional authority is empowered to call for and examine the record of any proceedings of Panchayat Raj Institution either on its own motion or an application from any person interested to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality and propriety of any decision or order passed therein as to irregularity of such proceedings. The revisional authority is empowered to modify, annul, reverse the decision of the Panchayati Raj Institution as also to remit the matter for reconsideration. The revisional authority is empowered to modify, annul, reverse the decision of the Panchayati Raj Institution as also to remit the matter for reconsideration. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the revisional authority setting aside the decision of the Gram Panchayat in issuing patta in favour of the petitioner, for the conclusions arrived at regarding the illegalities committed, cannot be faulted with. 9. No case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 10. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.