Locus standi and substantiation of challenges are crucial in writ petitions, and failure to provide evidence can lead to dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“A. That order dated 8-2-2016 (Annexure-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside and cancel the Patta (Annexure4) issued by the respondent No.3.”

2. The facts appertain are that the respondent No.4 – Dheer Singh filed an application (Annex.1) before the Gram Panchayat, Chohtan for allotment of patta under the category of weaker section as landless persons. The respondent No.3, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chohtan, after preparing the mauka report and complying the procedure, resolved to allot patta in favour of respondent No.4 under Rule 158 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1996’) vide Resolution No.1(5) dated 20.08.2009 (Annex.3) and issued patta No.2633 (Annex.4) on 10.12.2009.

3. Aggrieved against the issuance of patta (Annex.4), the petitioner preferred a revision petition for cancellation of the same before the respondent No.2 – District Collector, Barmer, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2016 (Annex.7).

4. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 08.02.2016 (Annex.7), the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that:

(a) the respondent No.2, while deciding the revision petition, did not consider the fact that the respondent No.4 was having an old house in village Chohtan where he is residing with his family, which the petitioner had clearly mentioned in his revision petition;

(b) the respondent No.2 also did not consider the documents placed by the petitioner on record showing that the respondent No.4 did not belong to weaker section and that he was not a landless person;

(c) the respondent No.2 has committed grave error of law while granting patta under Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under:

“158. Allotment of lands to weaker sections. -

(1) The Panchayat may allot Abadi land up to 300 sq. yards in village Abadis at concessional rate to members of Scheduled Caste, scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, village artisans, landless persons dependent on wage labour, IRDP selected families, Handicapped, Nomatic Tribes, Gadia Lohar who do not own house sites/house and also to flood victims whose house have been washed away or the house sites have been rendered unfit for future habitation due to floods and patta of such land may be issued in Form XXIII-C.”

From the perusal of the provision aforesaid it is clear that the panchayat may allot abadi land up to 300 sq. yards in village abadis at concessional rate to members of Scheduled Caste, scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, village artisans, landless persons dependent on wage labour, IRDP selected families, Handicapped, Nomatic Tribes, Gadia Lohar who do not own house sites/house and also to flood victims whose house have been washed away or the house sites have been rendered unfit for future habitation due to floods and the respondent No.4 did not fall under any of the category mentioned above. But, the respondent No.2 did not consider this aspect of the matter and granted patta in a cursory manner;

(d) the respondent No.2 also did not consider the fact that previously, a Standing Committee had passed a resolution on 20.08.2002 for auctioning the land and thereafter the subsequent Committee cannot recall the said resolution without following the procedure; and

(e) the Gram Panchayat, while granting patta in question, has not observed the provisions of Section 142 of the Rules 1996, which provides that the land can be sold only through auction.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 submitted that:

(a) the patta in question has been issued while observing the rules of law and the same does not suffer from any vice or infirmity;

(b) the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches as the patta in question was issued in the year 2009, whereas the same was challenged by filing revision petition in the