P.B. Majmudar, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Chittorgarh dt. 30.12.1995 by which the Collector has allowed the revision application filed by the respondent No. 2, herein.

2. The dispute in question is with regard to the construction of “Chabutara” (dias) on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has placed some projection at the front of his house. The son of respondent No. 2 and his relatives instituted a civil suit before the competent Civil Court objecting the said construction. However, the Civil Court prima facie found that there is no substance in the case of respondent No. 2 and the learned Civil Judge, Doongla by its order dt. 22.02.1995 (Annex.9) by giving detailed reasons rejected the prayer for injunction.

3. It is pointed out that prior to filing of said Civil Suit, earlier also, the respondent No. 2 himself had filed another suit before the Civil Court, Doongla. That suit was withdrawn by respondent No. 2, in order to file revision before the Collector.

4. The respondent No. 2 thereafter preferred a revision application before the Collector, Chittorgarh challenging the decision of the Gram Panchayat granting permission to the present petitioner for constructing the dais. The Collector, by the impugned order dt. 30.12.1995 at page 61 in the compilation allowed the application submitted by the respondent No. 2 by coming to the conclusion that nobody has right to put dais on the front of the house as the said portion belongs to the Panchayat and the construction of dais is against the rules.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the revision before the Collector was not competent at the relevant point of time as per the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Act of 1994)

6. It is further submitted that the civil Court by giving detailed reasons rejected the prayer for interim injunction filed by some of the plaintiffs wherein son of the present respondent No. 2, herein, was also one of the co-plaintiffs. He further submits that the Collector should have considered the reasoning given by the trial Court.

7. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Mehta that the construction in question is not offending and all the occupants of the premises in the same line have already put similar type of dais and respondent No. 2 who himself has made some construction, should not be permitted to make any grievance in this behalf.

8. It is further submitted that the Gram Panchayat has recorded a conclusive finding to the effect that all the occupants have already put same type of construction and there is no reasons to singled out the present petitioner.

9. It is pointed out to the Court that the respondent No. 2 has also made some construction and has encroached the portion of the land belonging to the Panchayat and considering the said aspect, the Gram Panchayat came to the conclusion that many occupants had made same type of encroachments and all these houses are on the same line. The Gram Panchayat accordingly found that the construction of the petitioner is not offending. The decision of the Gram Panchayt is placed on record at page 55 in the compilation i.e. dt. 13.08.1992.

10. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, it is submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Mehta that the construction in question cannot said to be illegal and the Collector has committed error in passing the impugned order.

11. It is further submitted that the Collector has not considered the reasoning given by the trial Court while deciding the application for interim injunction. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not violated any provisions of law.

12. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Dilip Kawadia, appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that it is true that the respondent No. 2 has put some construction on the Panchayat land but the said construction is only upto 2 ft. heig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document