Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—All the three petitions separately challenging the order dated 20.03.2012, passed by the Additional Collector, Sikar in three revision petitions whereby the Addl. Collector has set aside patta Nos.23, 24, 25 issued to each of the petitioners vide order dated 07.12.2009 by the Gram Panchayat Sargoth, are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they applied for grant of patta of land situate north of Indira Colony in Gram Panchayat Sargoth. It is submitted that their applications were submitted on or about 01.05.2009. According to the petitioners, the applications were processed by the Gram Panchayat Sargoth and three Panches were allegedly appointed under Rule 146 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1996') to inspect the site whereupon they did inspect the site and submit their inspection report. It is stated that the report of Patwari Halka was also asked for and submitted along with evidence of two witnesses. According to the petitioners, on the inspection made under Rule 146 of the Rules of 1996, their possession of houses allegedly existing on the land sought to be regularized was found to exist. Consequent to the recommendation made, land measuring 500, 699 & 504 sq. mtr. were allotted to each of the petitioners respectively under patta Nos.23, 24 and 25 as purportedly no objection to the regularization of the land in the names of the petitioners were received in spite of notice. The case of the petitioners is that they were issued patta aforesaid on 07.12.2009 in terms of Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996. The petitioners are stated to have deposited the requisite charges as demanded by the Panchayat. It is submitted that the land in respect of which pattas were issued to the petitioners were registered with the Sub-Registrar.

3. According to the petitioners, aggrieved of the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Gram Panchayat Sargoth issuing three pattas i.e. patta Nos.23, 24, & 25 to the petitioners, the respondent Nos.2 & 3, Leechman and Puran Mal laid revision petitions purportedly u/Sec. 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994') challenging the regularization of land and allotment of pattas in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that the Additional Collector, Sikar vide his order dated 20.03.2012 without application of mind and appreciation of facts on record has wrongly cancelled the said allotment of pattas to the petitioners. Hence the writ petitions.

4. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Rajat Ranjan appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the revision petitions filed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 was not maintainable before the Additional Collector, Sikar and in fact an appeal under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 166 of the Rules of 1996 ought to have been filed. Counsel further submits that in any event the Pattas issued to the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat Sargoth having been registered, it was not for the Additional Collector as the revisional authority to cancel the same and only a civil suit for the cancellation of the Pattas in issue duly registered could have been filed. It is submitted that the Additional Collector has misconstrued Rule 157 of the Rule of 1996 and proceeded on the basis that pattas were alloted to the petitioners under Rule 157(2) of the Rules of 1996 when in fact Pattas were alloted under Rule 157(1) of the Rule of 1996.

5. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and having perused the writ petition as also the impugned order dated 20.03.2012, passed by the Additional Collector, Sikar, I am of the view that there is no force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that revision petitions filed before the Addl. Collector-I, Jaipur were not maintainable. Section 97 of the Act of 1994 provides that “the State Government may, either of its own motion or on an application from any person interested, call for and examine t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document