The Municipality has the authority to cancel a registered patta if fraud is demonstrated, despite its registration, under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :-

(i). by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the District Collector, Jaisalmer may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed & set-aside.

(ii). by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned show-cause notice dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure-6), issued by the Municipal Board, Pokran as well as entire proceedings initiated for cancellation of registered patta may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set-aside.

(iii). Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned notice dated 16.05.2025 submits that the Municipal Board, Pokran has issued the said notice in compliance of the direction issued by the District Collector by its communication dated 01.04.2025. It is stated that the District Collector has no authority under the law to have issued the impugned communication dated 01.04.2025 so also the municipal authorities could not have proceeded against the petitioner by issuing the impugned notice based on the communication issued by the District Collector dated 01.04.2025.

2.1 Further, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the patta in question was issued after following due process of law and later patta was got registered. If at all the authorities intend to proceed against the petitioner for cancellation of patta, then they were required to proceed in accordance with law by approaching competent civil court. The respondents have no authority to proceed under Section 73 -B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (‘the Act of 2009’).

2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on following judgments :-

(1)- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5648/2004 : Ramchandra Vs. District Collector, Hanumangarh & Ors., decided on 15.03.2016.

(2)- D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.899/2017 : State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Smt. Parvati Devi & Ors., decided on 01.11.2017.

(3)- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9438/2018 : Gopal Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., decided on 02.02.2021.

(4)- D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.16/2022 : Smt. Pankhu Bai Vs. Shailesh Kumar & Ors., decided on 24.01.2022.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that based on a complaint, a committee was constituted by the District Collector and thereafter, considering the report submitted by the committee, impugned communication dated 01.04.2025 was issued, wherein directions were given to the Municipality to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is further stated that patta in question was issued in collusive manner while playing fraud upon the Municipal Board.

3.1 On the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the District Collector has not only directed to proceed in accordance with law but a positive direction has been given to cancel the pattas.

3.2 At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned communication dated 01.04.2025 issued by the District Collector may be quashed and set-aside and the respondents may be given liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. The petitioner has questioned the competence of the District Collector in issuing the commun