1. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued a patta by Nagar Palika, Fatehpur which was registered on 7.5.1997 before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. Pursuant to his title over the property under the registered patta, on 25.2.2016 petitioner was granted permission by Nagar Palika, Fatehpur- Shekhawati, District Sikar to raise construction as the map There for was approved.

2. A challenge to the registered patta dated 7.5.1997 came to be laid by respondent no. 5 – Mohammad Hussain by way of an appeal before District Collector, Sikar. Vide the impugned order dated 10.5.2016, the District Collector, Sikar has quashed and set-aside the registered patta/lease deed dated 7.5.1997 and remanded the matter to the Nagar Palika, Fatehpur for consideration of the matter of grant of patta to the petitioner afresh after inspection of the plot in issue and determining as to whether it could at all be allotted to the petitioner. Aggrieved of the Collector’s order dated 10.5.2016, the petitioner approached the Director, Local Bodies by way of a revision under Section 327 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereafter ‘the Act of 2009’). The said revision has however been dismissed by Director, Local Bodies on the ground that it was not maintainable. Hence this petition.

3. Mr. Kapil Bardhar appearing for the petitioner submitted that the challenge in the petition be confined to the order dated 10.5.2016 passed by the District Collector, Sikar as there is no legal necessity to impugn the order dated 24.5.2016 passed by Director, Local Bodies for the reason that it merely states that revision under Section 327 of the Act of 2009 against the order dated 10.5.2016 passed under Section 73(2) of the Act of 2009 was not maintainable.

4. On the merits of the petition, Mr. Kapil Bardhar submitted that the allotment made to the petitioner by way of registered patta dated 7.5.1997 at the instance of the Nagar Palika, Fatehpur could not be cancelled by District Collector, Sikar for lack of jurisdiction. He submitted that Section 73(2) of the Act of 2009 provides that the State government or a person authorized by it may only cancel the proposal to lease, sell, regularize, allot or transfer any Municipal land or Government land made by or on behalf of a Municipality or chairperson, or officer of a Municipality. Mr. Kapil Bardhar submitted that the Collector does not have power on the plain language of Section 73(2) of the Act of 2009 to cancel a registered lease deed. In fact unless authorized by the State Government under a specified order he could not even cancel a proposal to lease. In support of his contention, reliance was placed by Mr. Kapil Bardhar on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Versus The District Collector, Hanumangarh & Ors. {2016 (2) RLW 985 (Raj.)}. He further submitted that the registered lease deed/patta could not be cancelled except by way of resort to a suit for declaration before a competent civil court. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others {(2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 767}.

5. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma and Mr. Daulat Sharma submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramchandra S/o Shri Gulabchand Nai (supra), a contrary argument cannot be made at-least before this Court. Albeit he submitted that Section 73(2) of the Act of 2009 can be construed, in the context of the legislative intent, to confer power on the State Government or an officer authorized by it to cancel even a registered lease deed executed by the Municipality when such a lease deed is a fraud on the power of the Municipality to allot land.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. The impugned order dated 10.5.2016 has been passed by the Collector, Sikar. Even in terms of a plain reading of Section 73(2) of the Act of 2009, the Collector, Sikar does not have