The court upheld the cancellation of a patta due to improper issuance and lack of authority under applicable regulations.

Judgment / Order

03/03/2025 Since, all these writ petitions share similar facts and common question(s) of law, they have been heard together and are being decided vide this common order.

For convenience and ready reference, the facts are taken note of from the file of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2720/2022:

Banwari Lal vs. Village Development Officer and Others.

Under challenge in the writ petition is the order dated

24.11.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu (for brevity, ‘revisional authority’) in appeal no.10/2021 whereby, while allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act , 1994 (for brevity, ‘Act of 1994’), the subject patta issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.

The relevant facts in brief are that validity of the patta dated

29.11.1975 issued by the Gram Panchayat Dhatarwala, Tehsil Chirawa District Jhunjhunu in favour of the petitioner was assailed by way of a revision petition by the respondent no.1 which has been allowed by the revisional authority vide order dated

24.11.2021.

Assailing the validity of the order dated 24.11.2021, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the order dated 16.01.2004 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Chirawa in case no.131/2003 under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (for brevity, ‘Act of 1956’), is that thereby, while dropping the proceeding initiated against him for dispossession, the subject patta was held to be valid. He submits that the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2004 was affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.03.2004 while dismissing the appeal no.11/2004 preferred thereagainst. Learned counsel submits that since, validity of the subject patta was already upheld and affirmed by the revenue authorities, the revisional authority had no jurisdiction under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 to entertain the revision petition assailing its validity. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 24.11.2021 be quashed and set aside and the revision petition preferred against the subject patta be dismissed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the findings recorded by the revisional authority, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard. Considered.

While allowing the revision petition, the revisional authority has held that the Gram Panchayat Dhatarwala has, in its reply, stated that the subject patta was never issued by it and the then Sarpanch, without holding any inquiry and/or following the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for brevity, ‘General Rules, 1961’), has issued the subject patta under his own signature with no record of it in the Gram Panchayat. It was further held that the subject patta did not bear signature of the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Dantarwala and the Sarpanch alone had no authority to issue the patta. It was also held that as per the revenue record, the subject land was part of ‘gair mumkin johad’ which, at present, was recorded in the name of ‘gair mumkin school’ and the Gram Panchayat has no authority to issue patta in respect of land except the abadi land. In view of the aforesaid findings, it was held that the subject patta was nothing but a waste paper. Conspicuously, the aforesaid findings recorded by the revisional authority have not been assailed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner. Indisputably, Rule 269 of the General Rules, 1961 bars allotment of land by the Gram Panchayat except the abadi land. Further, the abadi land can be allotted either through auction as per the provisions contained under Rule 256 to Rule 265 of the General Rules, 1961 or, through private negotiation under Rule 266 or, without any fee under Rule 267, or to a displaced person or an ex-army personnel under Rule 267 A. In the instant case, the petitioner has not come out wi