IMPORTANT POINT
In the case of an ancestral property, the allotment of Patta should not be done in favor of one party unless it is established that all other parties have relinquished their rights or there is no dispute.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the District Collector, Pali, whereby the Patta issued to the petitioner was cancelled.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the matter are that the petitioner filed an application on 10.06.2014 before the Gram Panchayat, Roopawas for grant of Patta of the ancestral residential plot which was occupied by him. During the proceedings, an objection was filed by the respondent No.2-Champalal, who is the brother of the petitioner. However, the Gram Panchayat, Roopawas granted Patta No.78 dated 27.10.2014 in favour of the petitioner. Against the grant of Patta to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 filed a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 before the District Collector, Pali. The District Collector, Pali, after hearing the parties, allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 and cancelled the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the plot/property in question for more than 40-50 years. He further submits that on an application preferred by the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat, after having adopted the due procedure, granted Patta in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the revisional authority committed an error while passing the order dated 15.01.2018, whereby the Patta issued to the petitioner has been cancelled. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.2 has also filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction and the same is pending consideration before the civil court at Pali. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the District Collector, Pali may be quashed and set aside.

5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the order dated 15.01.2018.

6. The admitted facts in the present case are that the petitioner is in occupation of an ancestral plot/property for which he applied to the Gram Panchayat for grant of Patta. The respondent No.2 filed objection to the said application preferred by the petitioner. Despite the objection filed by the respondent No.2, the Patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Roopawas.

7. From the pleadings, it is clear that Hemaji (father of the petitioner) was having four sons and one daughter and the property in question was an ancestral property, therefore, despite the objection being raised by the respondent No.2 (brother of the petitioner), the Patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat singularly in the name of the petitioner. The partition suit is also pending consideration before the civil court which clearly shows that the property in question is an ancestral property and share of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was still to be demarcated and divided. It is further noted that in the application itself, the petitioner mentioned the property in question to be an ancestral property. Since the property is an ancestral property and the same has not been partitioned/divided between the brothers and sister of the petitioner, the Patta could not have been issued to the petitioner alone, more particularly, when the objection was raised by his brother i.e. respondent No.2. The finding recorded by the revisional authority is perfectly justified and unless the petitioner is able to show that the property belongs to him alone and there is no dispute among the brothers and sister, then only the Patta could have been issued in favour of the petitioner. As there is dispute between the share of brothers and sister in the ancestral property, the Gram Panchayat committed an error in issuing Patta only in the name of the petitioner.

8. This Court is firmly of the view that if there is an ancestral property for which a Patta is to