Honble PRASAD, J.–The petitioner in the present writ petition has impugned the order of Revisional Authority. In revision, the Revisional Authority has quashed a grant made in favour of the petitioner had his near relatives. The petitioner was at the relevant time, Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Udasar. Even, recently he continues to be Up-Sarpanch.

(2). An application was field by the petitioner for the purchase of land in view of Rule 256 and 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961). While the application was processed, site was inspected as required by Rule 258 of the Rules of 1961. A Committee of three members for inspection of site was constituted by Panchayat including the petitioner. Since, the Committee of Members for inspection of site included the petitioner, he did not participate in the inspection. The inspection was carried out only by two members namely Shri Sukh Singh and Shri Mohbtaram. After inspection, a notice under Rule 260 of the Rules of 1961 was published. The petitioner has submitted that even if it is assumed that notice did not fulfill the requirement of Rule 260, yet till date no objection was raised in relation to the allotment. Further, such objections have not even been made, when the construction was raised at the site. There had been a prejudice going on against the petitioner due to political rivalry. Some criminal complaints have even been lodged alleging false reports against him. Such reports have resulted which had resulted into filing of final report by the Investigation Agency.

(3). After processing of the application of the petitioner a resolution was drawn by the Panchayat being Resolution No. 3 dt. 20.7.1989. By this resolution, allotments were made to as many as 119 persons. Out of these 119 persons, 10 persons belonged to the family of the petitioner. For all these allotments, same procedure was adopted. The petitioner claims that consequent to the aforesaid resolution, a patta was issued in his favour vide order dt. 5.6.1990.The patta has been produced and marked as Annex.2. It has been claimed by the petitioner that patta has also been signed by the person who prepared the map at site.

(4). In the meanwhile, a complaint filed against the allotment made to the petitioner was processed. Preliminary enquiry in this regard was conducted by Panchayat Prasar Adhikari. After submission of the report of this preliminary enquiry, a revision came to be filed before the District Collector as per provisions of Sec. 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994). The petitioner claims that though this revision was filed, but there is remedy of appeal available under sec. 61 of the Act of 1994. A notice of revision was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the revision petition and submitted his oral submissions against the maintainability and merits of the revision petition. Ultimately, the revision petition was allowed by the Collector vide order dt. 30.12.2000. The said order dt. 30.12.2000 has been challenged by the petitioner.

(5). The petitioner claims that basic allegation against him was that the land was purchased at a throw away price. This allegation has not been gone into. The revision has only been decided only on the question of infraction of various Rules. The Revisional Authority has also not considered the fact that petitioner was in old possession of land. The petitioner has also denied that he had purchased the land at throw away price. The petitioner impugns the order under challenge by claiming that a revision petition filed after a long lapse of time should not have been entertained. The maintainability of such revision could only be there if a fraud is involved. In the instant case, no fraud can be seen. Further, when there is a remedy of appeal available and long time has elapsed, such exercise of revisional jurisdiction is unauthorised.

(6). The findings

Click Here to Read the rest of this document