HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24650/2025

1. Mangi Lal S/o Shri Manaram, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Baglop, Tehsil Kalyanpur, District Balotara (Rajasthan).

2. Smt. Uki Devi W/o Shri Jogaram, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Baglop, Tehsil Kalyanpur, District Balotara (Rajasthan). And Represented By The Petitioner No. 1 Through Power Of Attorney Holder.

3. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Jogaram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Baglop, Tehsil Kalyanpur, District Balotara (Rajasthan). And Represented By The Petitioner No. 1 Through Power Of Attorney Holder.

4. Laxman S/o Shri Jogaram, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Baglop, Tehsil Kalyanpur, District Balotara (Rajasthan). And Represented By The Petitioner No. 1 Through Power Of Attorney Holder.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Samdari, Panchayat Samiti Siwana, District Balotara (Rajasthan).

2. Ranchhod Ram S/o Shri Vagaram, Resident Of Choudhariyon Ka Nyati Bhawan Ke Samne, Railway Station Road, Samdari, Tehsil Samdari, District Balotara (Rajasthan).

3. Venaram S/o Shri Vagaram, Resident Of Choudhariyon Ka Nyati Bhawan Ke Samne, Railway Station Road, Samdari, Tehsil Samdari, District Balotara (Rajasthan).

4. Kanaram S/o Shri Vagaram, Resident Of Choudhariyon Ka Nyati Bhawan Ke Samne, Railway Station Road, Samdari, Tehsil Samdari, District Balotara (Rajasthan).

5. District Collector, Balotara (Rajasthan).

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

15/01/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the District Collector, Balotra, whereby the revision petition filed by the present petitioners was dismissed. He submits that the revision petition was filed challenging the patta No.48 dated 05.03.2002 (Annex-4) issued by the Gram Panchayat, Samdari, Panchayat Samiti, Siwana, District Barmer. It is submitted that the patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayti Raj Rules, 1996 (for short ‘Rules of 1996’). He further submits that the Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 mandates that the patta under this Rule can be issued only if there is possession or a residential house on the land. As far as the disputed plot in question is concerned, there is no construction existing even as on date. Based on the above facts, he submits that the Gram Panchayat committed illegality in issuing the patta under Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996. He further submits that the Revisional Court decided the revision petition after preponing the date. While referring to Annexure-8, he submits that as per the message received, the next date of hearing in the revision petition was 24.11.2025, however, for no good reason, the revision petition was preponed and the same was dismissed on 12.11.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that earlier the patta was issued in favour of the private respondents under Rule 167 of the Rules of 1996. Being aggrieved, the present writ petitioners filed revision petition and the same was allowed. It is submitted that the said order attained finality as no challenge was made to the said order.

In view of the submissions made above, issue notice of the writ petition so also of stay petition.

Meanwhile and till the next date, status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties in relation to the plot in question.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J

15-ajayS/-