[2025:RJ-JD:49677]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22363/2025 Parbat Singh S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Bhawani Pura Pokaran, Teh- Pokaran, District-

Jaisalmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The District Collector, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

3. Municipal Board, Pokaran, Through Its Executive Officer, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG with Mr. Monal Chugh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

18/11/2025

1. Issue notice. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned AAG is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondents and he accepts the same.

2. Service is hence, complete.

3. With the consent of the parties the present writ petition is finally heard at this stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by this Court on 14.10.2025 while deciding the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19697/2025 (Shiv Kumar Mewara and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.). The following order was passed in the said writ petition:

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed being aggrieved of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Municipal Board, Pokran so also the proceedings dated 25.09.2025 undertaken by the Empowered Committee of the respondent-Board.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of the patta of the petitioner is based on the recommendation dated

25.09.2025 made by the Empowered Committee.

3. It is further submitted that as per Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to ‘Act of 2009’) it is the respondent-Board which could have undertaken the exercise for cancellation of the patta, if at all found to be against the law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the definition of ‘Municipality’, as provided in Section 2(xlii) of the Act of 2009, means a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, and a Municipal Board in existence at the time of commencement, or constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings, which is undertaken by the Empowered Committee, which cannot be said to be Municipality and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.

5. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that matter is required to be remanded to the respondent-Municipality for deciding the same afresh.

6. Learned AAG, Mr. Rajesh Panwar submits that the pattas have been issued in a totally fraudulent manner as while issuing pattas the procedure provided under the law was not followed however, he is not in a position to refute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the procedure, which is required to be followed, as provided under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 before undertaking cancellation exercise and fairly states that impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded to decide the same afresh.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the said submission.

8. Considering the submissions made by respective parties, this Court hereby set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 so also proceeding dated 25.09.2025 drawn by Empowered Committee which recommended for cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and matter is remanded to Municipal Board, Pokran for deciding afresh, strictly in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s)

disposed of.”

5. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not refuted by learned counsel for the respondents.

6