Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Inderjeet Singh, J.
Chena Ram And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Thr. The District Collector, Jodhpur (raj.) And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1217, 1223, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1801, 1802, 1805, 1808, 1809, 1811, 1813, 1816, 1817, 1819, 1821, 1823, 1832 of 2019
Decided On : 06-02-2019
LAND ALLOTMENT - PATTAS - CANCELLATION - DELAY IN FILING REVISION - LACK OF JUSTIFICATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 - SECTION 97
Fact of the Case:
Multiple writ petitions challenging the cancellation of pattas (land allotment documents) issued to petitioners by the District Collector, Jodhpur, under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The petitioners argued that the cancellation orders were passed after a significant delay, ranging from 9 to 10 years, without any justification or explanation for the delay. They also contended that the revisional authority erred in entertaining disputed questions of fact and setting aside the pattas without any substantial grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned orders canceling the pattas were not justified and should be quashed. It relied on a previous judgment of a coordinate bench of the court in Smt. Dhagli v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which had dealt with a similar issue and held that revisions challenging pattas should normally be filed within three years from the date of issuance. The court found that in the present case, the revisions were filed after a significant delay without any explanation, and that the revisional authority had not pointed out any significant shortcoming or irregularity in the procedure followed while issuing the pattas.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Collector was justified in canceling the pattas issued to the petitioners after a delay of 9 to 10 years without any explanation or justification? 2. Whether the revisional authority erred in entertaining disputed questions of fact and setting aside the pattas without any substantial grounds?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in filing the revisions was not justified and that the revisional authority should not have entertained the challenge to the pattas after such a long delay. It relied on the Full Bench decision in Tara & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., which held that a period of three years should normally be sufficient for entertaining a challenge to a patta or allotment. 2. The court also found that the revisional authority had not pointed out any significant shortcoming or irregularity in the procedure followed while issuing the pattas. It held that the revisional authority erred in entertaining disputed questions of fact and setting aside the pattas without any substantial grounds.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders canceling the pattas issued to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
1. Learned Government Counsel Mr. Manish Patel accepts notices on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters are being finally heard.
3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1510/2019 - "Smt. Dhagli v. State of Rajasthan & Ors." decided along with connected matters on 01.02.2019 wherein, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:-
"The instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging order dt.30.06.2015, 27.05.2015, 15.07.2015, 17.06.2015, 03.06.2015 & 11.12.2015 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur whereby revision petition has been allowed and the valid pattas issued to the petitioners have been cancelled.
Learned counsel for the parties have been submitted that the similar controversy has been decided initially by this Court led by SBCWP No. 13015/2015 [Naina Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] decided by a common order dt. 20.11.2018.
Learned counsel has submitted that another identical bunch of writ petitions - SBCWP No. 841/2019 [Padma Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] and other connected writ petitions were decided by this Court on 17.01.2019. The order passed by this Court in SB CWP No. 841/2019 [Padma Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] and another connected writ petitions is quoted hereunder:-
While deciding the identical bunch of writ petitions, this Court held as under:-
"Learned counsel Mr. Paramveer Singh Champawat and Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, Advocates representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that the District Collector committed grave error in facts as well as in law while entertaining the revisions in question. The petitioners were in peaceful possession of the land under the questioned pattas for nearly 9 to 10 years before the revisions came to be instituted. The pattas were lawfully issued to the petitioners as per their after making due enquiry and following the requisite procedure provided under the Panchayati Raj Act and the Land Allotment Rules. The revisional authority went on to delve into disputed questions of facts and proceeded to quash the pattas of land lawfully issued to the petitioners without any justification whatsoever. He further submitted that the entire action was perpetrated at the instance of the JDA, which was bent upon to usurp the land in question lawfully owned by the petitioners for the purpose of establishing Sardar Patel Police University. He further urged that in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Tara & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2015 (3) WLN 197 (Raj.), the revisions were liable to be dismissed as being time barred. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners craved quashing of the impugned orders and acceptance of the writ petitions.
Per contra, Mr. Manish Patel, learned AGC representing the Panchayati Raj Department, has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners counsel. He submitted that the disputed pattas were issued in favour of the petitioners without following the due process of law and as such, the District Collector was absolutely justified in quashing and setting aside same by the impugned order, which as per Mr. Patel, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference therein.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record.
The first and foremost circumstance, which convinces the court that the revisional authority acted totally in an unjust manner while entertaining the challenge to the subject pattas is that the revisions came to be instituted after nearly 9 to 10 years after the date of issuance of the pattas in question and that too at the instance of the Vikas Adhikari concerned. No reason or cause was s
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
