Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2517
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Shri Mandar Jain Sangh – Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7319/2018
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Mr. B. S. Sandhu, Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, for the Appellant, Mr. J. L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate Assisted, Mr. Shashank Joshi, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki, Mr. Manish Patel, for the Respondent.
Gram Panchayat's authority to decide construction permission and title of land.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Construction Permission - The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of the Additional District Collector and Gram Panchayat, and directed the Gram Panchayat to consider the application for construction permission afresh within eight weeks, subject to the outcome of pending revenue suits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission for construction on land, but the Gram Panchayat refused based on the land being classified as Public Utility Land. The petitioner's title to the land was disputed by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revenue entries showed the petitioner as the rightful owner of the land, and the Gram Panchayat had no authority to decide the title of the land. The dispute was limited to the grant of construction permission, which fell within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat.
Issues: Dispute over construction permission and title of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Gram Panchayat had no authority to decide the title of the land, and directed them to consider the construction application afresh based on existing revenue records.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the orders of the Additional District Collector and Gram Panchayat were quashed, and the Gram Panchayat was directed to consider the construction application afresh within eight weeks, subject to the outcome of pending revenue suits.
ORDER
1. The matter is listed in the orders category on an application (Inward No.01/2022) for early listing of the matter.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard finally at this stage.
4. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by Additional District Collector, Sirohi, whereby the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being the Khatedar owners of the land in Khasara Nos.943 & 944 located inGram Mandar preferred an application to Gram Panchayat, Mandar for the construction of a building. The Gram Panchayat passed an interim order dated 23.06.2015 refusing to grant permission for raising construction. It was stated in the interim order dated 23.06.2015 that the petitioner may submit the documents to show that how the land was converted from "Mafi Dharmada Po Bharayi Panch Mahajan Khatedar" to "Panch Mahajanan Khatedar".
6. The petitioner preferred a Revision Petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 before the Additional District Collector, Sirohi. The Additional District Collector, Sirohi vide order dated 04.05.2018 rejected the Revision Petition on the ground that the land for which the petitioner has sought permission to construct a community hall and other buildings is a Public Utility Land and, therefore, the interim order granted by the Gram Panchayat on 23.06.2015 was just and proper and the revision petition against the interim order granted by the Gram Panchayat was rejected by the Additional District Collector, Sirohi.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the revenue entries, the subject piece of land is shown to be in the name of Panch Mahajan Khatedar and, therefore, there is no question to dispute the title of the land at this stage. He further submits that the Panchayat Authorities have no right as per law to question the title of the land which is in the favour of the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the permission sought for from the Gram Panchayat should be decided independently without taking into consideration the fact of conversion of revenue entries in the name of Panch Mahajan Khatedar.
8. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that since the land is a Public Utility Land and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat has rightly asked for the documents by which entries of the land were changed to the Panch Mahajan, and, therefore, the interim order passed by the Gram Panchayat was just, proper and correct and the order passed by the Additional District Collector rejecting the revision petition does not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. Learned senior counsel submits that the appeal against the conversion order dated 15.09.2014 is pending before the Board of Revenue. Learned senior counsel further submits that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner may be dismissed and the permission for construction should be given after the disputes pending in the Revenue Courts attains finality.
10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.
11. The revenue record placed before this Court shows that the last entry as per revenue record is in the name of Panch Mahajan Khatedar and, therefore, as per the revenue authorities, the petitioner is the person who is holding the right title and ownership of the subject piece of land. It is also noted that an application preferred by certain villagers under Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 was rejected against which an appeal has been preferred and the proceedings are pending at the appellate stage. Further proceedings with respect to the conversion order dated 15.09.2014 is also pending before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. Thus, the revenue entries in the name of petitioner as stand today creates no doubt with res
