1987 Supreme(Raj) 499
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
G K.Sharma, J.
Muhrali & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Rev. No. 131 of 36.
Decided On : 17-02-1987
The power of the Panchayat Samiti to allot land and the need to maintain status quo during the pendency of a revision petition.
Headnote:
PUBLIC NUISANCE - SECTION 133, CRPC - ORDER TO REMOVE KIOSKS - INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE - POWER OF PANCHAYAT TO ALLOT LAND - STATUS QUO MAINTAINED PENDING REVISION PETITION BEFORE COLLECTOR.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge (ADJ) reversing an order by the SDM dismissing a complaint under Section 133, CrPC, seeking removal of their kiosks from a public square, alleging nuisance.
Finding of the Court:
The ADJ correctly appreciated the evidence and found that the kiosks were creating a nuisance. However, the land belonged to the Panchayat Samiti, which had the power to allot it. A revision petition challenging the Panchayat Samiti's order to grant the land to the petitioners was pending before the Collector.
Issues: 1. Whether the kiosks were creating a nuisance. 2. Whether the Panchayat Samiti had the power to allot the land to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the ADJ had correctly appreciated the evidence and found that the kiosks were creating a nuisance. 2. The court held that the Panchayat Samiti had the power to allot the land to the petitioners, but the final decision would depend on the outcome of the revision petition pending before the Collector.
Final Decision: The court directed the Collector to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously and maintain the status quo till then.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioners have filed this revision against the order of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar (for short, "the ADJ") dated 19th Apr., 86, by which, he reversed the order of SDM-Behror, dated 30th Dec., 85.
2. Non-petitioners Roshan and Mahaveer filed a complaint under section 133, Cr PC against the petitioners and non-petitioners 1 to 9. Their allegation was that the petitioners were having their, Khokhas dumped in the public chowk, which had created nuisance to public, and so, they prayed that the said Khokhas be ordered to be removed. The SDM, Behror, after recording evidence of both the sides, found that the Khokhas were not creating any nuisance at the public chowk he therefore, did not consider it proper to pass any order regarding removal of the Khokhas and dismissed the complaint filed under section 133, Cr PC. Aggrieved by that order, a revision petition was filed by Roshan and Mahaveer before the ADJ, who, vide his order dated 19th Apr., 86. set aside and reversed the order of SDM dated 30th Dec.,85. The petitioners now have preferred this revision feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned ADJ.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Dhankhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had moved the Village Panchayat for granting them a Patta of the place at which their Khokhas were dumped. The Village Panchayat rejected the prayer of the petitioners on 30th May, 84. Thereafter, the petitioners went in appeal to Panchayat Samiti The Panchayat Samiti accepted their appeal, set aside the order of the Village Panchayat, and passed order that Patta be given to the petitioners, with regard to the place, where their Khokhaswere dumped, on payment of Rs. 200/- each. Mr. Dhankhar says that the petitioners have deposited the amount with the Panchayat Samiti. It is also not disputed that a further revision is pending against the order of the Panchayat Samiti before the Collector, Alwar, and that therein on 3rd April, 86, the learned Collector passed an interim order that "Patta" be not prepared and given to the petitioners.
4. Heard both the learned counsel at length and perused the statements recorded by the learned SDM The learned ADJ, in his judgment, has discussed that the learned SDM did not correctly appreciate the evidence. The allegation of the petitioners was that they were in possession of the place where the Khokhas were dumped by them for the last 20 years, while, the contention of the other side was that the Khokhas were so dumped by the petitioners over there only 21/2 years before. In this regard, the evidence was perused by the learned ADJ, but he did not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned SDM. I have also perused the statements of the witnesses, I find that the learned ADJ has correctly appreciated the evidence which was not done by the SDM. So, the order of the learned ADJ needs no interference.
5. But this controversy will not end here thus. The controversy is that at the public place, the petitioners are having their Khokhas and according to non petitioners Roshan and Mahaveer, the existence of these Khokhas has created a nuisance over there. The land where the said Khokhas have been dumped belongs to the Panchayat Samiti this is an open chowk, a public place. Under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, the Panchayat has the power to allot a land to anybody which belongs to the Panchayat. The petitioners have moved the Panehayat for granting the land to them. Panchayat Samiti is the appellate authority, and if anybody feels aggrieved by the order of the Panchayat Samiti, then the Collector has the revisional power. So, the question is whether the land is to be given on Patta to the petitioners or not this is a matter which is pending in revision before the Collector.
6. Mr. R.P. Goyal brought to my notice that the petitioners having not applied for allotment of land to the Village Panchayat, the Village Panchayat on 30th Aug., 84 passed an order for demolition of the Khokha
Click Here to Read the rest of this document