[2026:RJ-JD:4539]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1590/2026 Mangi Lal S/o Shri Moola Ram Choudhary, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Village Dhariya Tehsil Desuri District Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The District Collector, Pali.

2. Gram Panchayat Dhariya, Panchayat Samiti Rani, Tehsil Desuri District Pali Through Sarpanch.

3. Guman Singh S/o Sabal Singh, Resident Of Dhariya Tehsil Desuri District Pali.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roshan Lal.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

23/01/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction :

(i) The impugned judgment dated 29.03.2007 (Ann.5) passed by District Collector, Pali may kindly be declared highly arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

(ii) The revision petition filed by the respondent no.3 under section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed.

(iii) The Patta No.5964 Missal No.13/2000-2001 dated 18.01.2003 issued in favour of the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be restored.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The facts, as narrated in the present writ petition, are that a Patta was issued in favour of the present petitioner by the Gram Panchayat, Dhariya, Panchayat Samiti Rani, District Pali on 18.01.2003 under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules of 1996’).

2.1 Being aggrieved by the said patta, a revision petition bearing No.13/2005 came to be filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘the Act of 1994’) precisely on the ground that the patta was issued without adhering to the requirements as mandated under Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996, which was allowed vide order dated 29.03.2007. While allowing the revision petition, the patta dated 18.01.2003 issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the matter was remanded back to the Gram Panchayat to consider the matter afresh after assessing the claim of the petitioners as well as that of private respondent No.3 for the disputed plot. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order dated 29.03.2007 submits that the patta was issued after following due procedure of law. It is submitted that the revisional court has committed a serious error in allowing the revision petition. It is further submitted that the revisional court placed heavy reliance on the fact that disputed patta was issued under Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 and there was no material available to suggest old possession of petitioner so also any residential house existing on the disputed plot. It is also submitted that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by giving a direction that the Gram Pancahyat should examine the claim of the petitioner and the private respondent while adjudicating the claim over the disputed piece of plot, as such claims can be decided only in the suit proceedings.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5. This Court takes note of the fact that patta was issued on 18.01.2003 and the revision petition was filed in the year 2005. The same came to be allowed on 29.03.2007 and the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition after about 19 years. The petitioner has not assigned any reason explaining such inordinate delay in approaching the writ Court.

5.1 Even otherwise, the revisional court has observed that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was having an old residential house so also old possession based on which, the Gram Panchayat could have