High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dinesh Maheshwari
Amar Chand - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 114 of 2006
Decided On : 07/03/2006
Panchayat Land Sale - Panchayat Raj Act - Rule 156
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order setting aside the sale of land in their favor by the Gram Panchayat. The sale was set aside on the ground that the rights professed by the petitioners were non-existent and the entire proceedings were vitiated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had no legal right for the land sale and the alleged surrender and transfer of rights were doubtful and non-existent. The court upheld the decision to set aside the land sale.
Issues: Validity of the land sale, legality of alleged alienation, compliance with Panchayat Raj Act and Rules
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had no legal right for the land sale and the alleged surrender and transfer of rights were doubtful and non-existent. The court also found that the sale did not comply with Rule 156 of the Panchayat Raj Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the decision to set aside the land sale.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The Petitioners, seven in number, have submitted this writ petition against the order dated 010.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara in Panchayat Revision No. 10/2005 whereby the learned Additional Collector while accepting the revision petition has proceeded to set aside the sale of land in favour of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 by Gram Panchayat Bijoliyan on 30.10.1999 in File No. 156/1995-96 opened in the name of the Petitioner No. 6 Ram Kumar.
2. The learned Additional Collector has proceeded to set aside the sale made in favour of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 essentially on the ground that they had no such right for which the land could have been sold to them by way of private negotiations. Learned Additional Collector held that the rights sought to be professed by way of an alleged surrender of land by the Petitioner No. 6 Ram Kumar for the purposes of a school; then alleged alienation by the Petitioner No. 6 in favour of the Petitioner No. 7 Pannalal; and then alleged option stated by the Petitioner No. 7 for granting Pattas in favour of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 Amarchand, Nandlal, Kailash, Dhapu Bai and Jeetmal were fundamentally non-existent and the entire proceedings of the Panchayat were vitiated.
3. It shall be worthwhile to notice the matrix of facts as given out by the petitioners in this writ petition. According to the petitioners, the Petitioner No. 6 Ram Kumar had a piece of land adjacent to the Government Girls Upper Primary School measuring 40 x80 that he allegedly purchased on 212.1966 by way of a registered sale-deed. The school sought to take over his land for its expansion to which he agreed on the condition of being allotted alternative land by the Panchayat. According to the petitioners, File No. 156/1995-96 was opened on his application for exchange of land and thereafter on 11.04.1996 Gram Panchayat took a decision to allot free of cost a plot after surrender by the Petitioner No. 6 of this land measuring 40 x 80 to the school. It has further been averred that in pursuance of this decision, the said petitioner surrendered his plot to the Panchayat for expansion of the school building, the land was taken over and construction was
raised. On the other hand, according to the petitioners, the Gram Panchayat prepared a site plan for allotment of the land and objections were invited but no final decision was taken although petitioners plot was already got surrendered and possession was taken over by the school. The petitioners have thereafter narrated the so-called alienation by Petitioner No. 6 in the manner thus:
“Then Petitioner No. 6 looking to his the then need transferred his rights to get the alternate land/Patta
in lieu of the land given for school building, to Respondent No.7 but at that time no deed was executed.”
4. It may be clarified that the averment aforesaid as stated in Paragraph (6) of the writ petition purports to refer to `Respondent No. 7 but obviously it refers to the Petitioner No. 7 Pannalal; and there are only three respondents in the writ petition. Then, according to the petitioners, the right to have alternative land was re-agitated; earlier the Panchayat was about to allot the land near Ambedkar Colony but due to some dispute it was not so allotted and the petitioners suggested another land situated at Pathik Nagar; File No. 156/1995-96 was re-opened and notice inviting objections was issued on 05.08.1999 Annexure P-4) and after considering the objections the Panchayat on 30.10.1999 took the decision to allot a plot (half of 100 x 200). The petitioners have averred that on the request of Petitioner No. 6 the Panchayat agreed to allot the plots to the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and in view of difference of measurement decided to charge Rs. 10/-per square feet extra and the petitioners on 21.1999 deposited the amount demanded. Coming into existence of the rights of the petitioners has been averred in Paragraph (8) of the writ petition in the f
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.