2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19435
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
SUNIL BENIWAL, J
Marudhar Kanwar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 18251/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manohar Singh Rathore
A Patta cannot be issued for land without an existing dwelling house as per Rule 157 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.
Headnote:The court examined the application of Rule 157 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 regarding issuance of Patta based on old possession. The petitioner claimed rights to land due to historical possession. The court determined that no valid Patta could be issued owing to the absence of an old dwelling, affirming the findings of the revisional authority. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed as meritless, mirroring the prior decision in Ajit Singh's case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition and legal request. (Para 1) |
| 2. discussion on old possession and rule 157 (1). (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. final ruling and dismissal of the case. (Para 4 , 5) |
Order
14/10/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :-
‘1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be quashed the order dated 24.09.2024 (Annex.8) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Nagaur.’
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18207/2024 (Ajit Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.) has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
02.04.2025, wherein it was observed as under :-
‘ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.09.2024 whereby the revision petition preferred by the private respondents has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued a Patta on the basis of his old possession on the land in question. He submits that since the petitioner is having an old possession, therefore, the Patta has rightly been issued to him Learned counsel further submits that a number of persons have been issued Pattas on the basis of their old possession although there was no dwelling house on such land. He, therefore, submits that the matter may be remanded back to the revisional authority for deciding the same afresh.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through relevant record of the case.
The fact that Patta has been issued under Rule
157 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’) on the basis of old possession. On a pointed query being raised by this court, learned counsel for the petitioner frankly submits that there is no dwelling house on the subject piece of land for which the Patta has been issued. Rule 157 (1) of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:
“157. Regularisation of old houses.-
[(1) [Where the persons are in possession of the old houses in Abadi land and desire to get a patta issued, patta may be issued by the Panchayat [in Form XXIII-A] after depositing the charges as under :
(i) For area upto 300 sq. yards or constructed area including 25 percent of constructed area subject to maximum area 300 sq. yards:
(a) For old houses constructed more than fifty years before the date of commencement of these rules Rs.100/
(b) For old houses constructed [during the seventy years immediately preceding to date of 31st December, 2016] Rs.200/
Provided that no fees shall be charged under sub- clause (a) an only 10 percent fees shall be charged under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) above from the families included in the list of below poverty line.
Provided further that during the period of Prashasan Gaon Ke Sang Abhiyan 2021, the fees shall be charged at the rate of equivalent to fifty percent of the rate specified under clause (I) & (ii) above”. A perusal of the Rules of 1996 clearly show that under Rule 157 (1) of the Rules of 1996, a Patta can be issued only on old house which was constructed more than 50 years before from the date of commencement of these rules. It has been further mentioned that under the rule that for an area up to 300 square yards or constructed area including 25 percent of constructed area subject to maximum area
300 square yards, Pattas can only be issued.
In the present case, there is no old house for which Patta can be issued, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned revisional authority is perfectly justified. The revisional authority has categorically mentioned that there is no dwelling house of the petitioner for last 50 years on the land in question, therefore, Patta could not have been issued under Rule 157 (1) of the Rules of 1996. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, no illegality has been committed by the revisional authority while passing the order impugned. T