The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of land forming part of johar paitan from being divested for any other use, as specified under Section 16 of the Act of 1955, and the Court's interpretation of the law to uphold this protection.

JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - These intra-Court appeals are directed against common order dated 20.12.17 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein, assailing the order dated 11.10.17 passed by the District Collector, Churu under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act of 1994"), in Revision Petition Nos. 3/2017, 4/2017, 5/2017, 6/2017 & 7/2017, have been dismissed.

2. The appellants challenged the legality of the pattas issued in favour of the private respondents herein by the Gram Panchayat, Jhariya of residential land inter alia on the ground that the respondents already having the residential plots were not entitled for allotment of the land under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "Rules of 1996"). That apart, it was contended that the land in question forms part of the land of johar paitan ad measuring 114 bighas 18 biswas, comprising khasra no.95, which on account of prohibition contained in Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') could not have been divested for expansion of abadi.

3. The revision petitions were dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 11.10.17 observing that the material on record is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the respondents were already having the residential land in their possession and therefore, they were not entitled to further allotment. Regarding the land being part of the land categorised in the revenue record as johar paitan, the revisional authority opined that the land measuring 3 bighas & 10 biswas forming part of the land johar paitan, has already been divested for expansion of abadi by the State Government vide order dated 28.9.02 and thus, the pattas of the land already entered in the revenue record as abadi land, issued by the Gram Panchayat, cannot be cancelled. The revisional authority further observed that it would not be justified to cancel the pattas issued in the year 2004 after a lapse of about 12 years.

4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellants, observing that the appellants having failed to prove the fact that at the time of issuance of the pattas in question, some other residential plots had already been allotted to the private respondents, the revisional authority has rightly refused to cancel the pattas. The learned Single Judge observed that the District Collector, Churu vide order dated 13.11.02 had already converted 3 bighas & 10 biswas of land of khasra no.95 from johar paitan to abadi after approval of the State Government and therefore, the contention raised by the appellants that pattas of land forming part of johad paitan were issued by the District Collector, Churu, is without any merit.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has not examined the matter in correct perspective. The pattas of the land in question have been issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the members of one family, who were already in possession of residential plots and as a matter of fact, in the garb of the allotment made, they have encroached upon entire 3 bighas & 10 biswas land set apart for expansion of abadi by the District Collector, Churu. Learned counsel submitted that from bare perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that the plots have been allotted to the respondent no.4-Sanwata Ram and his other family members whereas, while setting apart the land for abadi purposes vide order dated 13.11.02, a specific condition was imposed that the plot of the size more than 500 sq. yard, shall not be allotted to one family, the families which are already having residential plots shall not be allotted the plots and preference shall be given to the families of SC/ST. Learned counsel submitted that it is settled law that the land forming part of johar paitan cannot be divested for expansion of a