Possession on government land without valid pattas is considered encroachment, and the actions of the Municipal Board were found to be justified.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2570/2023, while treating the same as a lead case.

2. The prayer clauses read as under :

“It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be ordered to be allowed and a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioner; and

(i) The impugned orders dated 26.02.1993 (Annex.5) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The patta so granted in favour of humble petitioner may kindly be ordered to be restored back or in the alternative respondent-Municipality Board may kindly be directed to regularize the possession of humble petitioner while taking requisite DLC rate charges over the property in question.

Any other order of direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner was having possession over certain land in Rawatbhata which was the holding of the Irrigation Department, and also since the same was being irrigated through Rana Pratap Sagar Dam, the father of the petitioner was paying rent for the land in question.

3.1. For the purpose of construction of Rana Pratap Sagar Dam, certain land was acquired, and out of the said land, almost 100 bighas of land, not utilized for Rana Pratap Sagar Dam Project, was transferred to Gram Panchayat, Rawatbhata for development of Abadi, in the year 1983. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat, Rawatbhata issued a patta in favour of father of the petitioner bearing Misal No.72 dated 19.03.1983 ad-measuring 40 x 30 feet of land.

3.2. The State through Panchayat Prasar Adhikari filed a revision (registered as Case No. 86/1992) under Section 27(A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 read with Rule 272 of the Panchayat General Rules, 1961 before the Court of Additional District Collector, Chittorgarh, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 26.02.1993, while cancelling the patta of the petitioner in relation to the land in question; since the said order was not challenged, the same had attained finality.

3.3. Subsequently, the Municipal Board was constituted at Rawatbhata in the year 1999, and thereupon, the land in question was purchased by the Municipal Board of Rawatbhata from the Ranapratap Sagar and Bhandar Division, Rawatbhata; since then, the land was continuously held by the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata.

3.4. Thereafter, the petitioner has received a show cause notice on 15.06.2011 from the Municipal Board, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon the land in question, and thus, was called upon to furnish the relevant documents regarding the land in question to showcase his ownership over the land. The petitioner filed a reply to the said notice on 20.06.2011. The Municipal Board however, through a General Notice (Aam Suchna) dated 12.03.2021, issued a direction that no encroachment over the government land(s) shall be allowed and if any encroachment, over the government land(s), is found, the same shall be removed within 3 days. The respondents thereafter, dismantled the constructed house of the petitioner.

3.5. Thus, being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, and the impugned order of cancellation of the pattas, the present petitions have been preferred for quashing of the same and the proceedings conducted thereafter, including removal of the constructions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no proper notice had been given to the petitioners prior to cancellation of patta, which was