SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Raj) 1511

NARAYAN ROY, MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI
Panna Lal – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sushila Devi – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant:R.L. Jangid, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K.C. Samdariya and M.P. Goswami, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points from the Judgment

  • The appeal challenges a single judge's judgment dated 3.12.2005 upholding the Additional Collector's dismissal of a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, filed against a Panchayat Samiti's land allotment order. (!) [17000229920001]

  • The revision petition before the Additional Collector was dismissed on merits and due to delay; the writ petition against it was also dismissed after considering all issues. [17000229920001]

  • During the appeal hearing, the court questioned the maintainability of the revision under Section 97 before the Collector, noting that such revisions lie only before the Government, and a specific appeal remedy exists under Section 61 of the Act read with Rule 166 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, for land allotments. [17000229920002]

  • Appellant relied on a 1996 government notification under Section 38 of the Act delegating revision powers under Section 97 to the Divisional Commissioner (for Collector orders except under Section 97) and to the Collector in other cases, arguing it enabled the Additional Collector to entertain the revision. [17000229920003] (!) [17000229920004]

  • Respondent argued that the specific appeal provision under Section 61 and Rule 166 (appeal to Panchayat Samiti against Gram Panchayat orders on land sales/transfers/allotments under Rules 154, 156-160) barred direct revision under Section 97 before the Collector. [17000229920005][170002299200


JUDGMENT

1. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been maintained.

2. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Additional Collector on a revision petition preferred by him by invoking the provisions of section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'). The revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Collector on merit as well as on the issue of delay. In the writ petition also, all the issues were considered and thereafter the order of Additional Collector was maintained.

3. While hearing the present appeal on merit, learned Counsel for the appellant was asked to show further as to how a revision petition under section 97 was maintainable before the Collector when such a revision petition can be maintained only before the Government and further more, when there is a specific provision of appeal under section 61 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 166 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') then how the revision under section 97 of the Act of 1994 was maintainable. The learned Counse

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top