Advocates:
['BS SANDHU', '', 'KS GUDA', 'HS SANDHU', 'DS GHARSANA', 'DRON KAUSHIK', '', 'RAJESH PANWAR AAG', 'AR GODARA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 271 / 2017

Up-sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Padampura, Tehsil- Suratgarh,

District- Sriganganagar Zulekha Begam W/o Shri Falaksher, Aged

About 33 Years, by Caste Musalman, Resident of Padampura,

Tehsil- Suratgarh District- Sriganganagar.

----Appellant

Versus

1.

The Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

2.

The Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar.

3.

Mansha Ram S/o Shri Ramjas.

4.

Birbal S/o Shri Ramjas,

Both by Caste Bishnoi, Resident of Mohamadabad,

Tehsil- Suratgarh District- Sriganganagar.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik

Mr. Shyam Paliwal on behalf of

Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

J U D G M E N T

Per Hon’ble Mr. G.K. Vyas, J.

04/12/2017

The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant,

Zulekha Begam (Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Padampura,

Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar), against the order

(2 of 3)

[SAW-271/2017]

dated 30.01.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP

No.1045/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the

writ petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated

16.11.2016 passed by Board of Revenue, passed in revision

petition preferred by the private respondents No.3 and 4

questioning the legality of order dated 11.01.2016 passed by

Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Sri Ganganagar and the Board

of Revenue held that petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the

appeal against the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by Sub-

Divisional Officer (SDO), Suratgarh, regularizing the possession of

private respondents over the disputed land.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as

per Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of

Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules,

1975 (Rules of 1975), the person aggrieved of an order passed by

allotting authority has a right to challenge the order by way of

appeal to the Colonization Commissioner, therefore, a grave error

has been committed by the learned Single Judge and Board of

Revenue so as to dismiss the appeal of the appellant/writ-

petitioner on the ground that he has no locus standi to maintain

appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner further

argued that the S.D.O. proceeded to regularize the possession of

the private respondents in illegal manner for extraneous

consideration, therefore, the appellant being Up-Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat Padampura, is entitled to maintain the appeal,

however, in total contravention of law, his writ petition has been

(3 of 3)

[SAW-271/2017]

dismissed on the ground that the appellant has no locus standi.

The Board of Revenue committed a grave to quash the order of

R.A.A., Sri Ganganagar, in which it is held that the petitioner has

no locus standi to maintain appeal against the order dated

14.09.2015 passed by the S.D.O., Suratgarh.

After considering the prayer of the appellant/writ-petitioner,

so also, finding of learned Single Judge, as well as of Board of

Revenue, we are of the firm opinion that petitioner has not been

able to make out any case to satisfy this Court that he is

aggrieved person because has nothing to do with the land in

question, but he is raising his voice being a citizen of the village,

that too, in the garb of his having holding the post of Up-Sarpanch

of Gram Panchayat- Padampura.

In our opinion, no error has been committed by the learned

Single Judge in upholding the order passed by the Board of

Revenue, whereby the order of R.A.A., Sri Ganganagar, was

quashed.

In view of above, no case is made out for interference.

Hence, this special appeal is hereby dismissed.

(DR. VIRENDRA KUMA