Honble KESHOTE, J–All these matters related to the dispute between the parties in respect of land allotted to them by the Gram Panchayat, Sardulpura, Panchayat Samiti Dudu, District Jaipur and the same are being taken up for hearing together and decided by this common order. Otherwise also these matters were ordered to be heard together by the Court.

Facts In Writ Petition No. 3276199

(2). Petitioner Jagdish son of Ladu Ram in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 18.6.1999 (Annexure-8) passed by the Additional District Magistrate-]], Jaipur. In alternate prayer is made to restrain the respondents from disturbing his possession over the land allotted to him by the respondent No. 2 under its resolution dated 18.5.1998 (Annexure-5).

(3). The facts which gave rise to the petition are that a piece of land in Abadi area of the village measuring 183 Sq. Yards (33 x 50) is alleged to be in,,the possession of the petitioner since last 35 years. The petitioner submitted an application on 4.6.1997 under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short `the Rules, 1996), before the respondent No. 2 and prayed therein to regularize his possession over the land in dispute for the use thereof for residence. The respondent No.2 alleged to have appointed three Panchas to inspect the site as per the Rule 146 of the Rules, 1996. Two panchas namely, Rampal Choudhary and Rampal Yadav prepared the inspection report on 18.7.1998. As per the Rule 148 of the Rules, 1996 the Gram Panchayat alleged to have issued a notice inviting objections against issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner, from the residents of the village.

(4). In para No. 5 of the petition it is admitted that the non-petitioner No.3 raised objections against sale of this land to the petitioner but same were disallowed by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No.2 vide its resolution (Annexure-4) resolved to grant patta of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner on `nazarana at the rate of Rs.15/- per Sq. Yard. In pursuance of this resolution of the respondent No.2 the petitioner deposited the amount of `nazarana and patta (Annexure-5) has been issued in his favour on 18.5.1998. The petitioner prayed for grant of permission for construction of pucca house on the land. He also alleged to have deposited Rs.250/- on 23.8.1998 towards fee. The respondent No. 2 stated to have given the permission to the petitioner for construction of the pucca house on this land.

(5). The petitioner in para No. 9 of the petition alleged that all of sudden the respondent No. 3 has fi-led a revision petition before the Additional District Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The revision petition was allowed by the respondent No. 1 under its order dated 18.6.1999 and. the patta issued in favour of the petitioner of the disputed land has been cancelled. Thus, this writ petition.

(6). On 15.7.1999 notices were issued to the respondents on 27.2.2002 writ petition was admitted. The Court has been pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 18.6.1999 (Annexure-8). The respondent No. 2 and 3 filed reply to the writ petition. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply.

Facts of Revision Petition No. 152 of 2000

(7). Plaintiff-petitioner Suwa Lal filed the suit out of which this revision arises, for injunction against defendant non- petitioners to restrain them from making any construction over the land in dispute. The dispute raised with respect to the land which was allotted in the name of the non-petitioner No. 3, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3276/99. Along with the suit an application has also been filed by the plaintiff petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sambhar Lake under its order dated 27.10.1998 accepted that application and directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document