SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 2970

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL SEAT JODHPUR
GOMA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW 19206/2022



The surrender of a portion of the land covered by a Patta requires registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, as it results in a modification of the terms of the Patta.

Headnote:

LAND PATTA - SURRENDER - REGISTRATION - COMPULSORY - SECTION 17(1) OF THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, challenging the validity of a Patta issued in 1973. The petitioner claimed that the father of respondents 3 to 5 had surrendered a portion of the land covered by the Patta, but the surrender was not reflected in the Patta. The revision petition was initially allowed but was later set aside on a writ petition filed by respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Addl. District Collector (I), Jodhpur, rejecting the revision petition.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the surrender of a portion of the land covered by the Patta required registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, as it resulted in a modification of the terms of the Patta. Since the surrender document was not registered, it could not be relied upon to challenge the validity of the Patta.

Issues: Whether the surrender of a portion of the land covered by a Patta requires registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides that certain documents, including those that modify the terms of a Patta, must be registered. The Court held that the surrender of a portion of the land covered by the Patta resulted in a modification of the terms of the Patta and, therefore, required registration.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Addl. District Collector (I), Jodhpur, rejecting the revision petition.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19206/2022

Goma Ram S/o Lal Chand, Aged About 73 Years, Awad Chowk,

Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of

Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.

Gram Panchayat Shergarh, Through Its Sarpanch,

Panchayat Samiti Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

3.

Inder Singh S/o Late Shri Pep Singh, Awad Chowk,

Shergarh, Presently Residing At Guman Singhpura, Tehsil

Luni, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

4.

Hem Singh S/o Late Shri Pep Singh, Awad Chowk,

Shergarh, Presently Residing At Guman Singhpura, Tehsil

Luni, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

5.

Ratan Singh S/o Inder Singh, Awad Chowk, Shergarh,

Presently Residing At Guman Singhpura, Tehsil Luni,

District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

PROFORMA RESPODENTS:

6.

Late Shri Lakshmi Narayan, S/o Dharmi Narayan Through

His Legal Heirs -

6/1.

Babu Devi W/o Late Shri Lakshmi Naryan, Awad Chowk,

Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

6/2.

Pawan Kumar S/o Late Shri Lakshmi Naryan, Awad

Chowk, Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

6/3.

Shiv Kumar S/o Late Shri Lakshmi Naryan, Awad Chowk,

Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

6/4.

Priyanka D/o Late Shri Lakshmi Naryan, Through Her

Natural Guardian Smt. Babu Devi, R/o Awad Chowk,

Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Moti Singh.

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

05/01/2023

(2 of 4)

[CW-19206/2022]

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 28/11/2022 passed by the Addl. District

Collector (I), Jodhpur, whereby, the revision petition filed by the

petitioner and proforma respondent no. 6 under Section 97 of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act, 1994') has been

rejected.

The revision petition was filed seeking to question the

validity of Patta dated 21/10/1973 issued in favour of father of

respondent nos. 3 to 5. It was inter alia claimed in the revision

petition that father of respondent nos. 3 to 5, Pep Singh, had

surrendered land ad measuring 20'x100' from the Patta ad

measuring 70'x100' issued in his favour, which land in question

was being used as a way. However, despite surrender, the children

of Pep Singh had put stone slabs and were seeking to obstruct the

use of way. Though, the land was surrendered by Pep Singh, the

effect of the same was not given in the Patta and, therefore,

revision petition was being filed.

Initially, the revision petition was allowed on 23/6/2015,

however, on writ petition filed by respondent nos. 3 to 5, the order

was set aside and the matter was remanded back.

The revision petition was contested by respondent nos. 3 to

5. Submissions were made that Patta ad measuring 70'x100' was

issued, which land is in their possession. The revision petition was

filed after 41 years and that the document sought to be relied on

claiming surrender of part of the Patta was not a registered

document, rather the document is not even in possession of the

Panchayat and, therefore, the document is void ab initio and

cannot be made basis for questioning the Patta.

(3 of 4)

[CW-19206/2022]

After hearing the parties, the Addl. District Collector by his

impugned order came to the following conclusion:

"izkFkhZ la[;k 01 ds dFkukuqlkj vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2

ds firk isiflag }kjk vius thoudky esa rFkkdfFkr

bdjkjukek ¼viathd`r½ tfj;s vius iV~Vk lqnk Hkwfe esa ls

100 x 20 Hkwfe xzke iapk;r 'ksjx<+ ds i{k esa lefiZr djus ls

mlds vf/kdkj lekIr gks tkrs gS] tcfd vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o

2 }kjk ,rjkt fy;k x;k fd izkFkhZ la[;k 01 }kjk tks

bdjkjukek izLrqr fd;k x;k gS oks iathd`r nLrkost ugha gS

vkSj u gh xzke iapk;r esa miyC/k gSA izkFkhZ la[;k 01 }kjk

U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA 100 :i;s ls vf/kd dh

vpy lEifr ds fy, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top