1. Appeal against cancellation of lease deed issued by Gram Panchayat under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, SUNIL BENIWAL, JJ.
Mahipal S/o Shri Bhanwarlal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Special Application Writ No. 327 of 2026
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jai Kishan Rankawat
For the Respondents: Sachin Acharya, Kunal Bishnoi, Dinesh, Ramdev Rajpurohit
For the Appellant : Jai Kishan Rankawat
For the Respondents: Sachin Acharya, Kunal Bishnoi, Dinesh, Ramdev Rajpurohit
An allotment of land issued in violation of statutory rules and influenced by nepotism is legally unsustainable. Prior possession or construction on the land cannot legalize a title where the foundational allotment is void due to statutory non-compliance.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act - Section 97 - Power of the Collector as revisional authority to examine the legality and propriety of pattas issued by the Gram Panchayat and to correct errors, irregularities, or illegality in such issuance (Paras 5 and 9).
(B) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act - Rule 47 - Violation of the rule against participating in a decision involving a direct personal interest; issuance of lease deeds to close relatives of the presiding officer in blatant disregard of statutory procedure constitutes nepotism and misuse of public authority to extend undue benefit (Paras 5.1, 6, and 8).
(C) Land Allotment - Validity of title - Possession of land, raising of construction, or existence of electricity connections cannot legalize an allotment issued in violation of statutory provisions; no right can be derived from possession or investment when the foundational allotment itself is unlawful (Paras 9 and 10).
Facts of the case:
The appellant was granted a residential patta by a Gram Panchayat for an abadi plot. Subsequently, a revision petition was filed before the District Collector seeking cancellation of the said patta. The revisional authority cancelled the patta after discovering that the allotment was made to a close relative of the then Sarpanch and was fraught with procedural irregularities. The appellant challenged this cancellation through a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. The appellant then preferred the present appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the patta was wrongly issued under a rule meant for the regularization of old houses despite the land being a vacant plot. It was noted that the then Sarpanch violated statutory rules by participating in a decision where he had a personal interest. Furthermore, serious procedural lapses occurred, including the reduction of the mandatory objection notice period from 30 to 7 days and failure to obtain approval from the competent authority for the lease amount. The court held that the issuance of the lease deed was legally unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the residential patta by the revisional authority was justified based on statutory violations and nepotism, and whether possession of the land can cure the illegality of a void allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the misuse of public authority to benefit family members through the bypass of statutory procedures bears the imprint of nepotism and renders the allotment void. Since the foundational allotment was unlawful, the appellant cannot claim a right based on possession or improvement of the land, as hardship cannot override a clear statutory mandate.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued patta was valid based on reports, but court upheld cancellation due to irregularities and nepotism. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court found patta issued to Sarpanch's relative in violation of statutory procedure, showing nepotism and favouritism. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Possession cannot legalize an illegal allotment; statutory violations render issuance void and liable to cancellation. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed; learned Single Judge's order upheld; any pending application disposed of. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Can a patta issued in violation of statutory procedure be upheld based on possession?
No, possession alone cannot legalize an allotment issued in violation of statutory provisions; the foundational allotment itself is unlawful. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. What is the scope of revisional power under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act?
The Collector, as revisional authority, has the power to examine legality and propriety of pattas and correct errors, irregularities, or illegality. (Para 9 )
8. Does a close familial relationship between the Sarpanch and the allottee constitute a conflict of interest?
Yes, it establishes a clear conflict of interest violating Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
JUDGMENT :
ARUN MONGA, J.
1. Instant inter court DB Appeal arises out of the final order and judgment dated 07.03.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Mahipal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. C.W.P. No. 2460/2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the District Collector, Pali, cancelling a lease deed issued earlier in favour of the appellant.
2. The appellant claiming to be in possession of an abadi plot, got a residential patta came issued in his favour by the Gram Panchayat on 20.04.2018. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 54,556/- towards the cost of the patta in accordance with the applicable DLC rates vide receipt dated 20.01.2018. It is further asserted that subsequent to the issuance of the patta, the appellant raised construction over the said plot and also obtained an electricity connection at the premises.
2.1 Thereafter, private respondents No.4 and 5 preferred a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act before the learned Collector, Pali, seeking cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the appellant. Upon being served with notice, the appellant submitted his reply contesting the revision. However, after considering the matter, the learned Collector, Pali, vide order dated 29.11.2022, allowed the revision petition and cancelled the patta granted in favour of the appellant.
2.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Collector, the appellant approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2460/2023. The said writ petition, however, came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.03.2026, against which the present appeal has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that learned Single Judge and so also revisional authority ignored reports submitted by the Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Daylana Kallan dated 25.05.2020, and by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Desuri dated 21.07.2020, which were placed on record. The said reports indicate that the land in question formed part of the abadi area and that the appellant’s family was stated to be in possession of the land since ancestral times. The reports also mentioned that pattas had been issued in accordance with the applicable rules and that several other residents of the locality had similarly been granted pattas by the Gram Panchayat. Hence the appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned orders.
4. In the aforesaid background, we have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have carefully perused the material available on record.
5. At the outset, reference may first be had to the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned revisional authority. The inspection report of the Development Officer reveals that lease deeds had been issued in favour of the Sarpanch’s close relatives, i.e., his brothers, nephews, wife and mother, that too, without following the prescribed legal procedure, indicating an attempt to extend undue benefit to family members.
5.1. Three major irregularities were noted:
a) Firstly, the lease deed was issued under Rule 157(1) meant for regularization of old houses, whereas the land in question was in fact a vacant plot;
b) Secondly, the then Sarpanch violated Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act by participating in a decision in which he had a direct personal interest, as the allotment was made to his relative;
c) Thirdly, several serious procedural lapses were found, including an undated application under Rule 157(1), contradictory office notes containing multiple dates, incomplete and pre-typed miscellaneous orders, undated inspection forms, and non-compliance with Rules 145 to 155 governing allotment. The objection notice period was reduced to 7 days instead of the mandatory 30 days, and although the lease amount exceeded Rs. 50,000, app
