Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 57 (RAJ)

Goma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2023-01-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 28/11/2022 passed by the Addl. District Collector (I), Jodhpur, whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner and proforma respondent no. 6 under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (’the Act, 1994’) has been rejected. 2. The revision petition was filed seeking to question the validity of Patta dated 21/10/1973 issued in favour of father of respondent nos. 3 to 5. It was inter alia claimed in the revision petition that father of respondent nos. 3 to 5, Pep Singh, had surrendered land ad measuring 20’x100’ from the Patta ad measuring 70’x100’ issued in his favour, which land in question was being used as a way. However, despite surrender, the children of Pep Singh had put stone slabs and were seeking to obstruct the use of way. Though, the land was surrendered by Pep Singh, the effect of the same was not given in the Patta and, therefore, revision petition was being filed. 3. Initially, the revision petition was allowed on 23/6/2015, however, on writ petition filed by respondent nos. 3 to 5, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded back. 4. The revision petition was contested by respondent nos. 3 to 5. Submissions were made that Patta ad measuring 70’x100’ was issued, which land is in their possession. The revision petition was filed after 41 years and that the document sought to be relied on claiming surrender of part of the Patta was not a registered document, rather the document is not even in possession of the Panchayat and, therefore, the document is void ab initio and cannot be made basis for questioning the Patta. 5. After hearing the parties, the Addl. District Collector by his impugned order came to the following conclusion: 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the findings of the Addl. District Collector regarding the document being inadmissible on account of same being unregistered is wholly baseless. 7. 5. After hearing the parties, the Addl. District Collector by his impugned order came to the following conclusion: 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the findings of the Addl. District Collector regarding the document being inadmissible on account of same being unregistered is wholly baseless. 7. Submissions have been made that the document is not required to be registered and as it bears the requisite stamp duty, the surrender was complete and, therefore, to the extent of land ad measuring 20’x100’, the Patta in question was required to be set aside and/or fresh Patta to the extent of 50’x100’ could be issued to the respondents and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. The entire basis of the revision petition has been the purported surrender of land ad measuring 20’x100’, out of the Patta belonging to Pep Singh, in the year 1988. A copy of the said document was produced by the petitioner along with the revision petition. The existence of original Patta and/or as to whether the same was ever submitted to the Panchayat, is in the realm of speculation. 10. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the document in question was registered. As to whether the document in question requires registration, the same is not in doubt inasmuch as the release/surrender is not of the whole but partial document, resulting in modification of the terms of the Patta, and the same cannot be done other than through registration of the document, as under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, such registration is compulsory. It is nowhere the case of the petitioner that the value of the document was less than Rs.100/-. 11. In that view of the matter, the findings as recorded by the Addl. District Collector holding that the document cannot form basis for accepting the revision petition and that civil suit between the parties in relation to the disputed land is also pending before the civil court, cannot be faulted. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.