Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14379

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J
Amit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Singh – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8185/2025|S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8189/2025|S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8177/2025|S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8181/2025|S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8182/2025|S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8184/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yogesh Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat, David Mehla

A revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, is maintainable only by a 'person interested', whereas a 'person aggrieved' by an order of a Gram Panchayat must avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 61 of the Act.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 61 and 97 - Maintainability of revision petition versus appeal - Distinction between 'person aggrieved' and 'person interested' - Held, an appeal under Section 61 is the appropriate remedy for a 'person aggrieved' by a Gram Panchayat order, whereas a revision petition under Section 97 is intended for a 'person interested' to challenge the legality or propriety of proceedings - Challenge to a patta issued by a Gram Panchayat by family members claiming ancestral right constitutes the position of a 'person aggrieved', necessitating an appeal rather than a revision petition. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu, which allowed a revision petition filed by the respondents and cancelled the pattas issued to the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat regarding certain lands. The petitioners contended that the respondents should have filed an appeal under Section 61 of the 1994 Act rather than a revision petition under Section 97.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable as the respondents were 'persons aggrieved' claiming ancestral rights, which falls under the purview of Section 61. Consequently, the orders passed by the Revisional Authority were quashed.

Issues: Whether the revision petition filed under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 by the respondents was legally maintainable against the issuance of a patta.

Ratio Decidendi: A distinction exists between 'person aggrieved' and 'person interested'; where a party claims an entitlement based on ancestral status concerning a patta, the proper statutory remedy is an appeal under Section 61, making a revision petition under Section 97 incompetent.

Result: Petitions allowed; respondents granted liberty to file an appeal.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

The court addressed multiple writ petitions involving land patta issuance and related proceedings (!) (!) .
The core issue was whether the revision petition filed by the respondent under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act was maintainable, or whether an appeal under Section 61 was appropriate (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that under the relevant provisions, an appeal can only be filed by a person who is aggrieved by an order, whereas a revision petition can be filed by a person interested in the matter (!) (!) .
The revision petition in question was filed by the respondent claiming themselves as family members and interested parties, but not as persons aggrieved, making the petition technically not maintainable (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the proper remedy for a person aggrieved by a land patta issuance is to file an appeal under Section 61, not a revision under Section 97 (!) (!) .
Based on the legal interpretation, the court found that the revision petition filed by the respondents was not maintainable and thus set aside the orders passed by the revisional authority (!) .
The court allowed the writ petitions and directed that the respondents could file an appeal under Section 61 within a specified period (!) (!) .
The court disposed of all pending applications and emphasized the importance of following the correct procedural remedies in such land and land rights disputes (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.

Table of Content
1. procedural summary and core prayer for setting aside the revisional order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties argument regarding the maintainability of section 97 revision versus section 61 appeal. (Para 6 , 7)
3. legal interpretation of section 61 vs section 97 regarding 'aggrieved' versus 'interested' persons. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. court's final decision quashing the revisional order and granting liberty to file an appeal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

Order

28/05/2025

1. The defect(s) pointed out by the Office stand waived.

2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and all these petitions are being decided by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience the facts pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8181/2025 are taken into consideration.

4. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2025 passed by Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu in Revision Petition No. 10/2023 titled Mahendra Singh Vs. Rajpal & ors. and further be pleased to dismiss the Revision Petition No. 10/2023 preferred by the respondent No. 1 with all consequential effects.

(ii) Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

5. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu, by which the revision petition submitted by the respondents has been allowed and the patta issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.

6. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that after following due process of law contained under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'), patta of the land in question was issued in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the respondents claiming themselves as persons aggrieved and being part of the family submitted, a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994') before the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu assailing the validity of the patta issued by Gram Panchayat Nand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. Counsel submits that the said revision petition submitted by the respondent was allowed and the patta issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Counsel submits that the revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 was not maintainable, as the same can be submitted only by the person interested and not by the person aggrieved. Counsel submits that anyone whosoever is aggrieved by any order passed by the Gram Panchayat, can file an appeal under Section 61 of the Act of 1994. Counsel submits that in the memo of revision petition, the respondent has shown himself as person aggrieved, even then, instead of preferring any appeal under Section 61 of the Act of 1994, a revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 was submitted, which was in fact not maintainable, even then, the same was entertained by the Revisional Authority and the patta issued in favour of the petitioner has cancelled. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Khusal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.57/2020) on 14.01.2020 and Nagar Mal Vs. Addl. District Collector, Sikar and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1106/2012) on 30.07.2012. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that without following due process of law as contained under the provisions of Rules

Click Here to Read the rest of this document