Advocates:
['PS BHATI', 'DHIRENDRA SINGHDHIRENDRA SINGH RS SHEKHAWAT', 'NUPUR BHATI', 'DHIRENDRA SINGH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------------

(1) CIVIL WRIT No. 793 of 2007

TULCHHA

V/S

STATE & ORS.

(2) CIVIL WRIT No. 794 of 2007

LAKMA

V/S

STATE & ORS.

(3) CIVIL WRIT No. 795 of 2007

CHATAR SINGH

V/S

STATE & ORS.

(4) CIVIL WRIT No. 796 of 2007

MAKANA

V/S

STATE

Mr. PS BHATI, for the appellant / petitioner

Date of Order : 18.4.2007

HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.

ORDER

-----

All these writ petitions arise in circumstances

involving common facts, and are, therefore, being disposed

of by this common order.

The learned Collector, Rajsamand by the impugned

order dated 21.6.2006, has cancelled the sale effected by

the Gram Panchayat to the petitioner, relating to various

portions of Khasra No.1648. It has been found by the

learned Collector, that from the Jamabandi, it is clear

that the land bearing Khasra No.1648 measuring 23 Bigha 7

Biswa is बलनम गर कबल कश. This land was never

transferred to any of the Panchayats including the

Panchayat Kankarva, and therefore, Panchayat has no right,

title or interest, so as to be authorised to transfer the

land, therefore, the sale has been declared to be void.

It is contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner, that the sale was effected way-back in the year

1969, and the revision had been filed in the year 2005,

which, in view of this long delay of more than 3 decades,

could not be entertained, and for this purpose, reliance is

placed on a judgment of this Court in Chiranji Lal Vs.

Additional Collector III Jaipur, reported in 2002(1) DNJ

(Raj.) 307, and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The

Karla State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P.

Kunhaliumma reported in AIR 1977 SC 282.

I have considered the submissions.

A look at the impugned order of the learned

Collector shows, that the aspect of delay was raised before

the Collector, and the contention has been negatived, by

placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court

in Chiman Lal Vs. State, writ petition No.1688/83 decided

on 18.2.2000, which judgment is said to be reported in 2000

(2) WLC (Raj.)-1, and while relying upon this judgment, the

Collector had found, that the revision can be entertained

2

at any time. So far the judgment in Chiman Lal's case is

concerned, that is a case, which arises under the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, while the present matter was raised

under Section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1961,

read with Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act

1994. This is one aspect of the matter.

The other important aspect of the matter is, that

even according to the averments of the writ petition, the

Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Kankarva allotted the land

of Khasra No.1648 at the village of the petitioner, and

after that, Gram Panchayat issued the lease deed in favour

of the petitioner on 13.7.69. It would suffice to say, that

this averment by itself means, that at the time when the

land was allotted, it was agricultural land, and not Abadi

land. Learned Collector had found, that this land was never

placed as disposal of the Gram Panchayat, and a look at the

provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1961 and the rules

framed thereunder shows, that there is no power with the

Gram Panchayat to make such allotment of agricultural land

to anybody. Whatever provisions are there, that authorise

the Panchayat to sell the land, they are all relati