[2026:RJ-JD:14956]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7192/2026 Virendra Godara S/o Shri Dharma Ram Godara, aged about 36 Years, R/o Village Palasani, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus

1. The Additional District Collector (I), Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Gram Panchayat Palasani, through Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Palasani District Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Narayan Lal Chopra S/o Shri Rawatmal Chopra, R/o Mandal House, Laxmi Nagar, Paota B Road, Jodhpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7201/2026 Sunil Godara S/o Shri Dharma Ram Godara, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Palasani, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus

1. The Additional District Collector (I), Jodhpur (Raj).

2. Gram Panchayat Palasani, through Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Palasani District Jodhpur (Raj.)

3. Narayan Lal Chopra S/o Shri Rawatmal Chopra, R/o Mandal House, Laxmi Nagar, Paota B Road, Jodhpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Falgun Buch Mr. G.K. Chhangani Ms. Simran Mehta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

01/04/2026

1. By way of filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenge the orders dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Collector (I), Jodhpur in Panchayat Revision Nos. 158/2025 and 157/2025, as well as the orders dated 24.02.2026 passed in Review Application Nos. 27/2025 and

26/2025.

2. Drawing the attention of this Court to the daily order sheets of the Court of Additional District Collector (I), Jodhpur in Panchayat Revision Nos. 158/2025 and 157/2025, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were bona fide pursuing the revision petitions and attended each and every hearing, either personally or through counsel, before the learned revisional Court. However, in their absence, the said revision petitions were finally heard and decided on 28.08.2025.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that, in the absence of the petitioners or their counsel, various factual and legal aspects could not be brought to the notice of the learned revisional Court. It was also contended that the issue of delay in filing the revision petitions was not properly considered. Further, the review applications filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 28.08.2025 came to be rejected by the revisional Court vide orders dated 24.02.2026 in a cursory and mechanical manner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the well-reasoned orders dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned revisional Court do not warrant any interference by this Court. It was contended that, admittedly, on the date fixed for final hearing, neither the petitioners nor their counsel were present; therefore, the learned revisional Court committed no illegality in deciding the revision petitions on merits and in setting aside the impugned pattas issued in favour of the petitioners.

5. Heard.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had remained present before the learned revisional Court on almost all dates of hearing. On earlier dates, the matter could not be heard for reasons such as non-availability of records. Thus, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the adjournments.

7. The learned revisional Court, keeping in view the principles of a fair hearing and audi alteram partem, ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to present their case before passing the impugned orders dated 28.08.2025, whereby the revision petitions filed under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act were allowed.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.08.2025 and 24.02.2026 passed by the Court of Additional District Collector (I), Jodhpur in Panchaya