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

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1359

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Chindra Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Upper District Collector Hanumangarh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. BS Sandhu., Mr. Surendra Kumar Shrimali, for the Appellant
Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. All the above noted writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 14.11.2017 passed by Upper District Collector, Hanumangarh in the revision applications preferred by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Gurmej Singh & Bhajan Singh, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were issued 'pattas' of the land in question way back in the year 1981. He submits that the 'pattas' of the land were issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat after taking recourse to Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the conditions mentioned in Rule 266 were duly complied with and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the 'pattas' of the land issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat. He further submits that there is no condition to the effect that for issuance of the patta of the land in question, there should be in existence a house. He, therefore, submits that the finding recorded by learned Revisional Authority vide its order dated 14.11.2017 is erroneous. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are in possession

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