SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Raj) 2536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Inderjeet Singh, J.
Bhana Ram And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Thr The District Collector, Jodhpur (raj) And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2019 Connected With Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2598, 3171, 3172, 11290, 11301, 13306, 13883, 13884, 13886 of 2017
Decided On : 07-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Gaurav Thanvi on behalf of Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, Advocates, for the Appellants; Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki on behalf of Mr. Manish Patel, Govt. Counsel, for the Respondents

A revision should not be entertained after a significant delay unless justified.

Headnote:

LAND ALLOTMENT - PATTAS - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 - SECTION 97 - DELAY IN FILING REVISION - COURT HELD THAT REVISION SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED AFTER A SIGNIFICANT DELAY UNLESS JUSTIFIED - WRITS ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the orders passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur, cancelling their pattas issued under the Panchayati Raj Act. The revisions were filed after a delay of 9 to 10 years, and the petitioners argued that the delay was not justified.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the revisional authority acted unjustly in entertaining the challenge to the pattas after a significant delay without any justification. The court also held that the revisional authority was not justified in setting aside the pattas issued to the petitioners, who belonged to the weaker sections of society.

Issues: Whether the revisional authority was justified in entertaining the challenge to the pattas after a significant delay without any justification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment passed by a coordinate bench of the court in Smt. Dhagli v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which held that a revision should not be entertained after a significant delay unless justified. The court also held that the revisional authority was not justified in setting aside the pattas issued to the petitioners, who belonged to the weaker sections of society.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders cancelling the pattas issued to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Sigh Solanki appearing for 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 Vik

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top