Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2885 (RAJ)

Geeta v. State of Rajasthan

2022-12-06

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Additional District Collector and District Magistrate, Phalodi in Jagdish. 3. Brief facts necessary to be the petitioner was issued patta situated in Gram Panchayat the revision preferred by one noted in the present case are that No.9 dated 20.10.2012 of a land situated in Gram Panchayat Lohawat in the year 2012. In pursuance of the patta issued to the petitioner, the petitioner took the possession of the land and presently, she is occupying the land in question. Jagdish challenged the grant of patta issued in favour of the petitioner by way of filing the revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. In the revision petition, after issuance of notice to the petitioner, she appeared before the revisional authority and filed preliminary objections on the maintainability of the revision petition itself. 4. The revisional authority vide order dated 18.04.2016 posted the matter on the reply filed and the preliminary objections raised therein for 25.04.2016. The revisional court on 25.04.2016 heard the preliminary objections of the petitioner on the maintainability of the revision petition and posted the matter for orders on 02.05.2016. On 02.05.2016, since the Presiding Officer was not there, so the next date was given as 10.05.2016. On 10.05.2016, the order sheet records that Presiding Officer is on tour and the matter is referred to Lok Adalat Abhiyan Nayay Aapka Dwar, 2016 in the Camp Court and the date was fixed as 04.06.2016. On 04.06.2016, the parties were present and the arguments were heard and the revision petition was disposed of by a separate order. Vide detailed order dated 04.06.2016, the revision petition preferred by Jagdish was allowed and the patta No.9 dated 20.10.2012 issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without deciding the preliminary objections raised on the maintainability of the revision petition, the matter was straightaway referred to the Lok Adalat and by resorting to the Lok Adalat procedure, the revision petition preferred by Jagdish was allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted in the present case is against the established procedure prescribed under the law for deciding the revision petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted in the present case is against the established procedure prescribed under the law for deciding the revision petitions. He further submits that even the revisional authority was influenced by the Minister, who sent a copy of the revision petition with an endorsement ’reply to my telephone talk, kindly look into the matter, thank’. He, therefore, submits that the order dated 04.06.2016 was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and without adhering to the procedure established by law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 04.06.2016 may be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that, the revisional authority passed the order dated 04.06.2016 after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Once the revisional authority has heard the parties and decided the matter by a speaking order, no interference in the writ jurisdiction is warranted by this Court. They, therefore, pray that the writ petition may be dismissed. However, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the procedure adopted in the present case. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 9. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was pending before the revisional authority and the order-sheets which have been placed on record read as under:- 10. A bare perusal of these order sheets goes to show that the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner were argued before the learned revisional authority and the revisional authority was to pronounce the judgment on the maintainability of the revision petition. However, the Reader of the Court on 10.05.2016 has referred the matter to the Lok Adalat without the order of the Presiding Officer. 11. A close reading of the order-sheets shows that the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner were not decided and straightaway in the Lok Adalat Abhiyan Nayay Aapka Dwar, 2016, the matter was heard and decided. 12. However, the Reader of the Court on 10.05.2016 has referred the matter to the Lok Adalat without the order of the Presiding Officer. 11. A close reading of the order-sheets shows that the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner were not decided and straightaway in the Lok Adalat Abhiyan Nayay Aapka Dwar, 2016, the matter was heard and decided. 12. This Court takes note of the fact that the procedure adopted in the present case was not in consonance with the established practice for deciding the cases as per Rules. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court feels that the order dated 04.06.2016 has been passed without following the due process of law and, therefore, the same is unsustainable in the eye of law. 13. In view of the detailed discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 04.06.2016 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the revisional authority for deciding afresh in accordance with law after giving all the opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. 14. For this purpose, the parties shall appear before the revisional authority on 04.01.2023, and thereafter as and when the dates fixed by the revisional authority. 15. It is also made clear that Government will be free to prosecute the revision petition preferred by them along with the present petition.