SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Raj) 148

Rajasthan High Court
Honble B.J. SHETHNA, J. Honble DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Honble BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.
Chiman Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1688 of 1983
Decided On : February 18, 2000

Advocates Appeared:
Om Prakash Beniwal, for Petitioner Vijay Bishnoi, D.R. Bhandari & B.S. Bhati, for Respondents

Headnote:Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, Sec. 27-A read with Rule 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and General Rules, 1961 – Absence of provisions for any period of limitation provided under the Act or the Rules – Exercise of Revisional powers by the Authority under Rule 272 – Held – Must be exercised within reasonable time – Reasonable time will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case – The Courts only interpret law and do not make law.

       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that it is not the function of the court to prescribe the limitation where the Legislature in its wisdom had thought it fit not to prescribe any period. As held by the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singhs case (supra) the Courts only interpret law and do not make laws. Personal views of the Judges presiding the court cannot be stretched to authorise them to interpret law in such a manner which would amount to legislation intentionally left over by the Legislature. Hence, we are of the opinion that when no period of limitation under Rule 272 of the Rules 1961 is prescribed by the Legislature then we cannot prescribe any period of limitation that in what time the revisional powers can be exercised by the authority under Rule 272 of the 1961 Rules. When no period of limitation is provided then in our opinion the same has to be exercised within a reasonable time and that will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case like; (i) when there is fraud played by the parties; (ii) the orders are obtained by mis-representation or collusion with public officers by the private parties; (iii) Orders are against the public interest; (iv) the orders are passed by the authorities who have no jurisdiction; (v) the orders are passed in clear violation of rules or the provisions of the Act by the authorities; and (vi) void orders or the orders are void ab initio being against the public policy or otherwise. The common law doctrine of public policy can be enforced wherever an action affects/offends the public interest or where harmful result of permitting the injury to the public at large is evident. In such type of cases, revisional powers can be exercised by the authority at any time either suo moto or as and when such orders are brought to their notice. (Para 25)

       Accordingly, we answer the reference that when no period of limitation is provided either under the Act or the Rules then the same has to be exercised within a reasonable time and reasonable time will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 28)

Honble SHETHNA, J.–This petition has been placed before us on a reference made by our learned brother Honble V.G. Palshikar J. on 14.5.1999. It is a brief order, which we would like to reproduce, which is as under:-

``Dated 14.5.1999

S.B. Writ Petition No. 1688/83

Honble Shri V.G. PALSHIKAR, J.

Mr. D.S. Shishodia, for Appellant.

Mr. Vijay Vishnoi, for Respondent.

In this petition, the order of the Collector and other authorities is challenged on several grounds. The important question, however, which arises in this case is regarding jurisdiction of the Collector to invoke revisional powers under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 and the Rules made thereunder can be exercised at any time as the Section provides no limitation for such exercise. There are divergent view on the point and at least two contradictory judgments of the Single Bench including myself. I am of the view that though there is no period of limitation prescribed, the reasonable period as contemplated by the residury Article of the Indian Limitation Act would apply, conversely no limitation can apply is also a view taken by another Single Bench. Even Division Bench relying on the point may need harmonise construction for interpretation. In such circumstances I feel that authoritative a five pronouncement by this Honble Court on this question of law is necessary as the question is repeated with regular intervals.

Therefore, place the papers before your lordship the Chief Justice for appropriate orders in this regard.

(V.G. PALSHIKAR, J.)

(2). Before answering the reference few important facts are required to be stated, which are as under:-

(3). Original petitioner-Chiman Lal son of Shri Sagar ji has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 13.4.1983 (Annex. 5) passed by Collector, Jalore. It is the case of the original petitioner Chiman Lal that he was in possession of the land admeasuring about 3384 sq. yards adjacent to Panchayat Samitis Seeds Godown (Beej Godam) prior to 1972, which was used by him for his cattle and storing ``Chara for the cattle and to keep his agricultural and business vehicles. In view of his old possession over the land he applied for grant of Patta for the said land and the Gram Panchayat, Raniwada Kalan-respondent No.4 issued patta in his favour and conferred title over the land by charing a nominal amount of Rs. 69.95 after making enquiry and completing all the formalities. Annex. 1 is a copy of Patta dated 30/31.7.1972.

(4). On 16.2.1982 the respondent No.3, Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Raniwada Kalan issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to remove the encroachment made by him on the land and handover the possession of the same to the Panchayat Samiti. According to the petitioner the said was served upon him only on 10.5.82. However, as per the averments made in para No. 7 of the petition itself the Panchayat Samiti took over the possession of the land from the petitioner on 15.5.1982, but it was only a paper possession and he was never dispossessed from the land in question. The said land was attached in a proceedings filed u/Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. Prior to that he filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Panchayat Samiti and others praying that they may be restrained from forcibly dispossessing him from the land in question. The said suit was pending and order of status quo was also passed therein.

(5). It is the further case of the petitioner-Chiman Lal that with a view to over reach the order of competent civil court the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti filed revision petition before the Collector, Jalore under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 read with Rule 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules, 1961 in the last week of March, 1982 against the order of grant of Patta passed by the Gram Panchayat on 30/31.7.1972. On a notice received from the Collector in the said revision petition, he filed his appearance on 31.5.1982 and also filed reply on 20.7.1982 (Annex.4). The



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top