HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 175/2020

Khusal Singh, By Caste Rajpurohit, R/o Village Basni Manana,

Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department

Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

2.

Additional Collector-1, Jodhpur

3.

Jan Swasthya Abhiyantrik Vibhag, Upkhad Mandore Head

Quarter Jodhpur Through Assistant Abhiyanta

4.

Gram Panchayat Bawarli, Tehsil Balesar, Dist. Jodhpur

Through Sarpanch.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Malam Singh Rajpurohit through

VC

For Respondent(s)

:

---

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

Date of pronouncement: 03/03

/2022

By the Court: PER HON’BLE BORANA, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

14.01.2020 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ

petition of the petitioner-appellant challenging the order dated

20.09.2007 quashing his patta had been dismissed.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in terms of

Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter

referred to as, “the Act of 1994”), Collector was the only authority

authorized to exercise the power of revision in terms of

notification dated 13.12.2001 issued by the State Government. In

(2 of 4)

[SAW-175/2020]

the present matter the revisional order under challenge has been

passed by the Additional Collector which, in terms of Section 97 of

the Act of 1994, is beyond his jurisdiction.

Section 2 (vi) of the Act of 1994 reads as under:

““Collector” means Collector of a District and

includes Additional Collector.”

A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that in

terms of law, an Additional Collector can exercise the same rights

as exercised by a Collector and vide notification dated 13.12.2004

the said power has been delegated by the State Government. As

held by the learned Single Judge, the power of revisional

jurisdiction exercised by the Additional Collector was therefore,

perfectly valid.

The second ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is

that the grant of patta was perfectly in terms of Rule 157 of

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Rules of 1996”).

So far as the ground of issuance of patta being in

conformation to Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 is concerned, the

same has been dealt in detail by the learned Single Judge and a

specific finding has been recorded to the effect that:

Firstly, the patta pertains to land ad measuring 537.41 sq.

yards whereas Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 specifies for limit of

300 sq. yards by the Gram Panchayat on the fixed rates. In cases

where the area exceeds 300 sq. yards, it has to be on the rates

recommended by District Level Committee, which has admittedly

not been done in the present matter.

(3 of 4)

[SAW-175/2020]

Secondly, there was no residential house constructed on the

allotted land which was sine qua non for the implementation of

Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996.

Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:

“(1) Where the persons are in possession of the

old houses on Abadi land and desire to get a

patta issued, patta may be issued by the

Panchayat in Form XXIII-A after depositing the

charges as under:-

(i)

For area upto 300 sq. yards or constructed

area including 25 percent of constructed are

subject to maximum area 300 sq. yards:

(a)

For old houses constructed Rs.100/-

more than fifty years before

the date of commencement

of these rules

(b)

For old houses constructed Rs.200/-

during the fifty years

immediately preceding

the date of commencement

of these rules.

(ii)

For area, exceeding the area specified in

clause (i) above, on such excess area 25 percent

of the market rates recommended by the District

Level Committee constituted under clause (b) of

rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rule