The validity of a patta can be annulled if issued contrary to procedural requirements, irrespective of its subsequent registration.

Order

26/09/2025

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Additional District Collector, Bhinmal in Revision Petition No.08/2024 whereby the revision petition filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 was accepted and the patta issued in favor of the petitioners was cancelled.

2. The material facts, in brief, are that the petitioner No.1 submitted an application to the Gram Panchayat, Bhagalbhim for issuance of patta of a plot in his favour on the basis of his continuous, long and old possession. Upon receiving the said application, the proceedings for issuance of patta were initiated and a three-member committee was formed for site inspection. On the basis of the report dated 05.09.2021 submitted by the three- member committee, a Resolution No.07 dated 02.10.2021 was passed. Accordingly, patta of the plot admeasuring 206.38 sq. yards was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bhagalbhim in favour of the petitioner No.1 under Section 157 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’) recognizing his ancestral possession of more than 50 years. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 sold the said plot to petitioner No.2 by way of a registered sale deed dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure-3).

3. The legality of the patta issued in favor of the petitioner No.1 came to be challenged by the respondents No. 1 to 3 by way of a revision petition preferred under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of

1994’) before the Additional District Collector, Bhinmal.

4. The Additional District Collector, Bhinmal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Revisional Authority), after due consideration of the record of the case and submissions of the parties, recorded a finding that the petitioner No.1-applicant submitted an incomplete application before the Gram Panchayat and had failed to produce any concrete documents or evidence showing his continuous, long and old possession regarding the alleged ancestral land/residence of his forefather or affidavit in evidence. The Revisional Authority also observed that the three- member committee failed to comply with the process under Sections 146 , 147 and 148 of the Rules of 1996 and consequently the Gram Panchayat has issued the patta to the petitioner No.1- applicant in violation of the Rules of 1996 and while allowing the revision petition, the patta No.44 Misal No.16, Resolution No.07 issued in favor of the petitioner No.1-applicant was cancelled.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents No.1 to 3 did not have any locus standi to file the revision petition before the learned Additional District Collector, Bhinmal for cancellation of patta issued in favor of the petitioner No.1. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel submitted that neither the respondents No.1 to 3 have claimed for issuance of patta in their favor nor they were ever in possession of the said plot. Therefore, the revision petition preferred by the respondents No.1 to 3 was not maintainable and the learned Additional District Collector, Bhinmal has erred in allowing the revision petition without considering these aspects.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the patta issued in favor of the petitioner No.1, after duly following the procedure laid down under the Rules of 1996, has already been registered and the same has subsequently been sold to petition