The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred under the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1971 for disputes regarding sale deeds when no specific authority exists to declare them null and void.

Order

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed thus:-

“(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned registered sale-deed dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure-6) executed by respondent No.6 in favour of respondent No.7 in the office of respondent No.8 Sub-Registrar, Jaisalmer may kindly be cancelled and same may be declared null and void to the rights of petitioner over the land of Khasra No.587 and 609 of Village Aankal, Patwar Area Ankal, Tehsil and district Jaisalmer.

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed allot the land Khasra No.587 and 609 of Village Aankal, Patwar Area Ankal, Tehsil and district Jaisalmer in the name of petitioner for a period of three years who is permanent resident of Village Aankal, Patwar Area Ankal, Tehsil and district Jaisalmer (Raj.).

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

2. Mr. Deepak Chandak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 at the outset raised an objection that the writ petition is not maintainable. He argued that petitioner’s prayer for quashment of registered sale deed dated 15.07.2024, which the respondent No.6 has executed in favour of the respondent No.7 can be granted only by a competent Civil Court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner is in any manner aggrieved of the transaction or sale deed dated 15.07.2024, he is supposed to file a suit for declaring the sale deed to be null and void.

4. He further argued that the matter in hand involves number of disputed question of facts and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Mr. Sumer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the sale deed executed by respondent No.6 is contrary to section 40 of the Rajasthan Gram Dan Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1971’) and void-ab-initio, it deserves to be declared as such.

6. Learned counsel argued that remedy of suit is specifically barred under section 46 of the Act of 1971, hence, the only remedy left with the petitioner is to invoke writ jurisdiction.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the relevant provisions of the Act of 1971 which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“40. Restriction on sale of lands held by Gram Sabha or Gramdan Kisan.

Where the interest of a Gramdan Kisan in any land donated to the Gram Sabha, or where the interest of the Gram Sabha in any land is sold on account of any default in the payment of any amounts due from the Gramdan Kisan or the Gram Sabha, as the case may be, such interest shall not be sold to any person other than the Gram Sabha or a person who has joined the Gramdan community of the village in which the land is situate.”

“46. Bar of jurisdiction.

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act.

(2) No order made by any such officer or authority under this Act shall be called in question in any court.”

8. True it is that, section 40 of the Act of 1971 puts an embargo upon the sale of the land, except to the Gram Sabha or a person of Gramdan Community. Without commenting upon the correctness, legality or otherwise of the transaction in question, even if it is assumed that the sale deed is contrary to section 40 of the Act of 1971, this Court is of the view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred.

9. Section 46 of the Act of 1971 in no ambiguous term provides that no Civil Court or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under the Act of 1971.

10. Said provision further stipulates that no order made by any officer or authority