JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.04.2022 whereby the writ petition preferred by petitioner-present appellant challenging the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Additional District Collector, Bhilwara in revision petition filed by the respondents no. 4 and 5 challenging the petitioner’s patta, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the onus with regard to there being a document available was on the Gram Panchayat and since the records were not available, the appellant cannot be made to suffer. His assumption is that as per Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short ‘the Rules of 1961’) the terminology used is ‘Panchayat’ and therefore the Sarpanch would be the competent authority to sign the document. The patta which was issued in favour of the appellant on 25.04.1984, being in accordance with the Rules of 1961, the same should have been accepted as there was no illegality in the issuance of such patta.

3. Assertion has also been made that there is no bar as far as the allotment of the Panchayat land for industrial purposes is concerned. He, on this basis, contends that the reasons assigned by the authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge are, therefore, unsustainable for not accepting the stand of the appellant.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. A perusal of the same would show that the provisions of Rule 266 of the Rules of 1961 clearly lay down that the land can be allotted to a person who is in possession of the Abadi land for 20 years or more but less than 42 years on one-third of the prevailing market price and in case, the possession is over 40 years, on one-sixth of the prevailing market price. For establishing the factum of there being a valid patta having been issued in favour of the appellant, possession had to be established. There is no evidence which has come on record regarding he being in possession of the land, which is the subject matter of the patta, for more than 20 years. In absence of any evidence to that effect, the issuance of the patta in favour of the appellant itself falls into oblivion.

6. It may be added here that the land could only be granted for residential purposes. This is apparent from the fact that the land could be used for such purposes only. Even if it is accepted for argument sake that the land measuring 30,000 sq. ft. was allotted for industrial purpose, nothing till date has come into existence on the said land. No industry has been established by the appellant. Non utilization of the land again points with regard to the benefits of the appellant.

7. Another aspect which has been pointed out by the learned Single Judge is that there is no number mentioned with regard to the patta issued in favour of the appellant. The date of issuance also has not been clearly specified. Signature of the alleged Sarpanch also has not been established, although the mandate according to the now prevailing rules require signatures of the Secretary or the BDO along with the Sarpanch. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for interference in the present appeal.

8. The appeal, being devoid of merit, the same stands dismissed.