HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3701/2022

Roshan Lal S/o Shravan Kumar Khariwal, Aged About 61 Years,

Bada Mahua, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Government

Of Rajasthan, Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat,

Jaipur.

2.

The Additional District Collector, Bhilwara.

3.

The Gram Panchayat Bada Mahua, Through Its Sarpanch.

4.

Babulal S/o Rameshwar Lal Sahrma, Bada Mahua, Tehsil

And District Bhilwara.

5.

Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Sharma, Bada

Mahua, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Prashant Tatia for

Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit

For Respondent(s)

:

---

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

22/04/2022

1.

By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order

dated 10.01.2022, passed by the learned Additional District

Collector, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revisional

Court’) in a revision petition that was filed by respondent No. 4

and 5 challenging petitioner’s ‘patta’.

2.

Precisely narrated the facts relevant are that when the

respondent No. 4 and 5 started raising construction upon a land

for which a Patta was issued to them, the petitioner instituted a

(2 of 4)

[CW-3701/2022]

suit for injunction claiming ownership and possession over said

land on the basis of ‘Bapi patta’ (perpetual lease) dated

25.04.1984 issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bada Mahua,

District Bhilwara.

3.

Respondent No.3 & 4 challenged petitioner’s ‘Patta’ dated

25.04.1984 by way of filing a revision under Section 97 of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

4.

Learned Revisional Court upon considering the facts and

pleadings of the parties allowed the revision and set aside

petitioner’s ‘patta’ dated 25.04.1984, inter alia observing that the

same was illegally issued and huge chunk of land admeasuring

30,000 sq. ft. has been conveyed to the petitioner.

5.

It has also been held by the Revisional Court that as per Rule

157(i) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, no patta can

be issued for a land measuring more than 300 sq. yard. (2700 sq.

ft.) and that under the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act, a patta

can be issued only in relation to old possession and that too for

residential purpose, whereas contentious ‘patta’ has been issued

for of establishment of factory. It has also been found as a fact

that no factory has been established by the petitioner.

6.

While allowing the revision petition, the learned Revisional

Authority has also referred to communication dated 30.04.2018

sent by the Panchayat Samiti, Gram Panchayat Bada Mahua

intimating that record for grant of such patta is not available in

the Panchayat.

7.

Calling in question, the order aforesaid learned counsel

submitted that during the course of hearing of the revision

petition, the petitioner had requested the Additional District

Collector to defer hearing as the matter between the parties was

(3 of 4)

[CW-3701/2022]

subjudice in the competent Civil Court and there was an order of

maintaining status quo.

8.

He argued that in view of the order of maintaining the status

quo the Revisional Court ought to have deferred the hearing and

thus, it could not have set aside the patta. It was also argued

that the Revisional Court has erred in relying upon the provisions

of Rules of 1996, because petitioner’s patta was granted on

25.04.1984. He added that according to then prevailing Rules of

1961, a Patta could be granted for any size and that the petitioner

was granted patta in terms of Rule 266 of the Rules of 1961.

9.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

materials available on record.

10.

A simple look at the impugned patta, shows that it has been

issued for a huge chunk of land admeasuring 30000 sq. ft