Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2233 (RAJ)

Gram Panchayat, Mandar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-16

KULDEEP MATHUR, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant Gram Panchayat, Mandar, has filed the instant intra court appeal being aggrieved of the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by learned Single Bench, accepting the writ petition filed by the respondent No.2 - Shri Mandar Jain Sangh in the following manner:- "The revenue record placed before this Court shows that the last entry as per revenue record is in the name of Panch Mahajan Khatedar and, therefore, as per the revenue authorities, the petitioner is the person who is holding the right title and ownership of the subject piece of land. It is also noted that an application preferred by certain villagers under Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 was rejected against which an appeal has been preferred and the proceedings are pending at the appellate stage. Further proceedings with respect to the conversion order dated 15.09.2014 is also pending before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. Thus, the revenue entries in the name of petitioner as stand today creates no doubt with respect to the title of the land in question. It is also noted that the Panchayat has no authority to decide the question of the revenue entries as the same lies in the domain of the revenue authority of the State of Rajasthan. The subject matter of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is only with respect to the grant of permission for construction of building and, therefore, the respondent- Panchayat was not vested with the powers to raise the question or decide the same about the revenue entries and the title of the subject piece of land. The respondent - Gram Panchayat is well within their right to grant or not to grant the permission within the framework of the provisions of law. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Additional District Collector, Sirohi as well as interim order dated 23.06.2015 passed by Gram Panchayat, Mandar are quashed and set-aside. The respondent - Gram Pacnahayat, Mandar is directed to consider the application for raising construction submitted by the petitioner afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application in accordance with law as per the existing revenue records placed before them. The respondent - Gram Pacnahayat, Mandar is directed to consider the application for raising construction submitted by the petitioner afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application in accordance with law as per the existing revenue records placed before them. It is also made clear that any construction activities undertaken by the petitioner will be subject to the out come of the proceedings pending before the revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue. If the revenue suits are decided against the petitioner, the construction raised on the subject piece of land shall be used for the larger public interest of the villagers." 2. Shri Teja Ram, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the original entry qua the land in question as per the revenue record for the Samvat years 2016-2019 would indicate that the land in question was of Mafi Dharmada category and had been gifted to the Panch Mahajanan for public purposes. However, by inadvertent error, in Samvat years 2014-2025 and years 2024-2027, the words Mafi Dharmada were deleted and the entry was made exclusively in the name of Panch Mahajanan. He urges that Gram Panchayat has already moved an application for rectification of error in the revenue entry. The matter is coming up for consideration before the competent forum shortly hereinafter. He thus, urges that till the list pending before the Revenue Courts is decided, the respondent Shri Mandar Jain Sangh should be restrained from raising construction on the land in question. 3. Per contra, learned counsel Shri B.S. Sandhu and Shri Shreyansh Mardia representing the respondent Shri Mandar Jain Sangh, submitted that the learned Single Bench has passed a very equitable order wherein, it has been observed that as on date, the title of the land in question vests in the writ petitioner, who has been allowed to raise construction on the land in question after seeking permission of the Gram Panchayat, Mandar. It is further been clarified that in case, the revenue litigation is decided against the writ petitioner, the construction raised on the subject piece of land shall be used for larger public interest of the villagers. They fervently urged that the order under challenge is absolutely justified and does not warrant any interference. 4. It is further been clarified that in case, the revenue litigation is decided against the writ petitioner, the construction raised on the subject piece of land shall be used for larger public interest of the villagers. They fervently urged that the order under challenge is absolutely justified and does not warrant any interference. 4. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and upon a threadbare consideration of the material placed on record, we are of the view that the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench, which is assailed in this appeal is perfectly justified and balances the equities. As on date, the revenue entry of the land subject matter of the litigation, stands in the name of the writ petitioner Shri Mandar Jain Sangh, Mandar and as such, it has a legal right to raise construction thereupon, albeit, after obtaining construction permission from the Panchayat. The learned Single Bench, has already protected rights of the Panchayat and citizens of the village by observing that in case, the revenue litigation is decided against the Sangh, the property in question shall be put to use for public purposes. 5. Thus, we find no error, illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.04.2022, warranting interference in this intra court appeal, which is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 6. No order as to costs.