Advocates:
['PUROHIT', '', 'MAMTA JOSHI', 'ASHOK PATEL', '', 'MANISH PATEL']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ No. 9727/2014

Shivji Ram & Anr.

----Petitioner

Versus

Heera Ram & Ors.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. M.S. Purohit.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Manish Patel, AGC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

23/08/2018

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

Through this writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners have approached this Court

for assailing the order (Annexure-3) dated 30.12.2013 passed by

the learned Additional District Collector, Didwana, District Nagaur

in Revision No.03/2009 whereby, the revision preferred by the

respondent Heera Ram under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act

was accepted and the patta No.36 dated 22.01.1972 allegedly

issued by the Gram Panchayat Indokha in favour of the petitioner’s

father Late Shri Kaluram was quashed and set aside.

The thrust of arguments advanced by Shri M.S. Purohit,

learned counsel representing the petitioners was that the patta in

question came to be issued way back in the year 1972. The

revision was filed after significant delay in the year 2009 and thus,

could not have been entertained and the same was time barred.

He further urged that the patta was duly issued after following the

(2 of 4)

[CW-9727/2014]

requisite procedure as provided under Rules 265, 266 and 277 of

the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1961 and as such, as per Shri

Purohit, the revisional court committed grave error in law as well

as in facts whilst exercising the revisional jurisdiction and setting

aside the patta issued almost 37 years ago. On these grounds,

Shri Purohit craved acceptance of the writ petition urging that the

impugned order is totally arbitrary and perverse and hence, the

same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, Shri Manish Patel, AGC learned counsel

representing the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments

advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He urged that the patta

No.36 which was allegedly issued in favour of the petitioner’s

father Shri Kaluram was ex-facie illegal and void ab initio for the

reason that the Sarpanch, acted on his own in a grossly illegal

manner and issued the patta on revenue land which was never in

jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat can only

issue pattas for urban lands vested in the Panchayat and the

illegal patta which was issued by transgressing the jurisdiction was

rightly quashed by the Additional District Collector in the revision.

He further pointed out that no record of the patta is available in

the Panchayat. Furthermore, the patta was allegedly issued on

22.01.1972 whereas the amount of consideration to the tune of

Rs.50 was deposited on 22.07.1972. Thus, he submitted that the

patta apart from being illegal is also forged and sought dismissal

of the writ petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on

record.

(3 of 4)

[CW-9727/2014]

True it is that the revision was filed in the year 2009 i.e.

after nearly 37 years from the date of issuance of the patta in

question but this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that in cases,

where the pattas are issued in gross abhorrence to the provisions

of the Panchayati Raj Act and the Land Allotment Rules,

manifestly, the bogey of limitation cannot be treated a bar in

exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is a pertinent finding of

the revisional court in the impugned order that the patta was

issued by the Srapanch concerned for land of Khasra No.135

which was revenue land and not an urban land available to the

panchayat for allotment. Since the patta was issued for land which

was never under the administrative control of the Gram Panchayat

and was not available for allotment under the Panchayat Land

Allotment Rules, manifestly, the Gram Panchayat had no bus