Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 72
[Citation : RLW 2009(1) RJ 649 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Chandra Prakash Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Chauhan, J.)
HON'BLE R.S. CHAUHAN, J.
Chandra Prakash
Versus
State of Raj. & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8135 of 2005, decided on 16.01.2009
Vijay Pathak, for Petitioners;
Ms. Arti Sharma, for Respondent No.3;
Ankur Rastogi, Addl. G.A., for State
Headnote:Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Sec. 97 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, Rule 141, 158 — Land allotted by Gram Panchayat on the application — Land not sold by auction but has been sold to an individual — Held — Rule 141 imposes a duty on Panchayat to auction the land unless there is "special reasons" for not doing so — Gram Panchayat to discuss and deliberate on the existence of special reasons — Patta was issued on the basis of an arbitrary and unfair decision — Patta has been issued ultra vires the jurisdiction of the Panchayat — Patta has no legal sanctity. (Paras 13 to 15 & 19)
Writ petition allowed.
Rule 141 imposes a duty on the Panchayat to auction the land unless there is "special reasons" for not doing so. Thus, the Panchayat must endeavour to auction the land. It is permitted to deviate from the auction of the land only if "special reasons" exist for doing so. Hence, Rule 141, requires the panchayat to discuss and deliberate on the existence of special reasons. The decision of Gram Panchayat must clearly reveal the "special reasons" for deviating from the sale by auction. (Para 13)
jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt vf/kfu;e] 1994] /kkjk 97 ,oa jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e] 1996] fu;e 141] 158 & vkosnu djus ij xzke iapk;r }kjk Hkwfe vkoafVr dh xbZ & Hkwfe uhykeh ls foØ; ugha dh xbZ cfYd O;fDr dks foØ; dh xbZ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fu;e 141 iapk;r ij Hkwfe uhyke djus dh M;wVh vf/kjksfir djrh gS tc rd fd ,slk u djus gsrq dksbZ ^^fofk"B dkj.k** u gks & xzke iapk;r dks fofk"B dkj.kksa dh fo|ekurk ij fopkj foekZ djuk gksrk gS & euekus ,oa vuqfpr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij iV~Vk tkjh fd;k x;k & iV~Vk iapk;r dh vf/kdkfjrk ls ijs tkjh fd;k x;k & iV~Vs dh dksbZ fof/kd ifo=rk ughaA
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA ?in la[;k 13 ls 15] 19?
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order 09.09.2005 passed by the Additional District Collector, Sawai Madhopur whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Gram Panchayat Act, 1994 has been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to this petition are as follows :-
A piece of land, lying near the station gate, falling under the Gram Panchayat Chauth Ka Barwada, was allegedly under the possession of the petitioner from 1991 onwards. According to the petitioner, he had submitted an application for the allotment of the said land to the Gram Panchayat. However, the Gram Panchayat did not pay any heed to his application. Subsequently, on 24.02.2000, one Shri Shivji Ram filed an application for allotting the said land to him, the Gram Panchayat accepted the said application and allotted the land to Shri Shivji Ram on 16.05.2000. Since the land was not allotted to the petitioner, he filed an appeal challenging the said allotment before the Permanent Administration Committee, Panchayat Samiti, Sawai Madhopur. However, vide order dated 30.01.2002, the Panchayat Samiti dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision before the Court of Additional District Collector, Sawai Madhopur ('the ADM', fort short), challenging the allotment letter dated 16.05.2000 as well as the decision of Administration Committee dated 30.01.2002. The ADM, vide order dated 26.11.2002, accepted the petitioner's revision and set aside the allotment letter dated 16.05.2000 and the decision of the Administration Committee.
3. Meanwhile, respondent No.3, Trilok Chand moved an application before the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 20.11.2004 decided to allot the land to Trilok Chand. Vide letter dated 16.01.2005, the land was allotted to Trilok Chand. Since the land was allotted to Trilok Chand, the petitioner again filed a revision petition before the Court of ADM challenging the decision of the Gram Panchayat dated 20.11.2004 and the allotment letter dated 16.01.2005. However, vide judgment dated 09.09.2005, the petitioner's revision petition has been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.
4. Mr. Vijay Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the Rajasthan Gram Panchayat Rules, 1996 ('the Rules', for short) contain the procedure for sale of land by a Gram Panchayat. According to Rule 141 of the Rules, a land should be sold by Panchayat through auction unless there are "special reasons" for not doing so. However, in the present case, the land has not been sold through auction, but has been sold to an individual. In the decision taken on 20.11.2004, the Gram Panchayat has not spelt out any "special reasons" for not following the requirement of Rule 141 of the Rules. Therefore, the decision taken and the allotment of the land are contrary to Rule 141 of the Rules. Secondly, in its decision, the Gram Panchayat allotted the land to the respondent No.3 ostensibly under Section 158 i.e., allotment of land to weaker section of the society. However, there is no evidence to show that Trilok Chand belongs to "the weaker section of the society". In fact, Trilok Chand claims that the land was bought by him from Shivji Lal. According to the registry of the land, the land was bought by him for Rs.70,0007- . Since, Trilok Chand had paid a consideration of Rs.70,0007-, he cannot be held to "belong to the weaker section of the society". Therefore, the Gram Panchayat could not have allotted the land to him under Rule 158 of the Rules. Thirdly, even if the Gram Panchayat had decided to sell the land to a private individual, under Rule 148 of the Rules it was required to issue and publish notice to the public at large inviting objections from the public. However, in the present case, no such notice was issued to the public. Therefore, the requirement of Rule 148 of the Rules has been ignored. Fourthly, although the obje
