Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 114 (RAJ)

Bhagirath Ram v. State of Rajasthan And Others

2020-01-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Ratangarh and order dated 04.12.2019 passed by District Collector, Churu, whereby, the appeal filed against the allotment of land/issuance of Patta dated 05.08.2014 has been allowed by the Panchayat Samiti and the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the District Collector, respectively. 2. The petitioner was issued a Patta by the Gram Panchayat on 05.08.2014 and the same was got registered on 24.12.2014. Where after, the complainant Kishan Singh filed an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti against the Patta issued to the petitioner. 3. The Panchayat Samiti after hearing the parties by its order dated 26.07.2016 (Annexure-6) came to the conclusion that issuance of Patta involves violation of provisions of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('Rules of 1996'), wherein, the land in question, which was Abadi in nature, could only be transferred/sold by way of open auction and consequently set aside the Patta issued to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition before the District Collector, Churu. 4. The District Collector, Churu also, after hearing the parties, while rejecting the revision petition came to the following conclusion:- 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities below were not justified in setting aside the Patta issued to the petitioner, which was registered. Submissions have been made that once the Patta has been issued, which is registered, the same could only be set aside by way of filing a suit and not by way of appeal under the provisions of Rules of 1996 and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. Further submissions have been made that Patta has been issued to the petitioner by following due procedure and, therefore, on that count also cancellation of petitioner's Patta is not justified and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. : (2016) 10 SCC 767 . 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. 7. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. : (2016) 10 SCC 767 . 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. In so far as the plea raised by the petitioner in relation to cancellation of a registered Patta is concerned, the Patta was issued to the petitioner, appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (7\ct of 1994') read with Rule 166 of the Rules of 1996 and further the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994. 10. The provisions of the Act and Rules providing for appeal against various orders including the order of issuing Patta, merely because the same stood registered, cannot take away jurisdiction of the appellate forum/revisional forum. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Jhumar Ram v. Additional District Collector (Second), Jodhpur & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 656/2017, decided on 15.12.2017 when a similar plea was raised based on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Manohar Lal v. District Collector, Barmer & Ors. : 2015 (2) RRT 967 came to the conclusion that the Patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in contravention of Rules can be quashed while exercising powers under the Act. 12. So far as the judgment in the case of Satya Pal Anand (supra) is concerned, the same pertain to the powers of registering authorities in recalling the registration of a document and the same does not deal with powers of the authorities under the Act of hearing appeals regarding orders of allotments merely because the document (Patta) pursuant to the allotment has been registered and, as such, the judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 13. In so far as the findings recorded by the Panchayat Samiti as well as revisional authority pertaining to violation of provisions of Rules and/or Patta having been issued without any support in the Rules is concerned, the findings are concurrent and learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the said findings and/or support the issuance of Patta under any other provisions of the Rules. 14. In view thereof, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. 14. In view thereof, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.