(1 of 5)

[CW-14206/2020]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14206/2020

Vishnu S/o Shri Gyan Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Suroth At

Present R/o Mohalla Shahganj, Hindaun City, District Karauli.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Radheyshyam S/o Dharam Singh, R/o Surauth, Tehsil

Surauth, District Karauli

2.

Gram Panchayat Surauth, Panchayat Samiti Surauth,

District Karauli Through Administrator And Village

Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Surauth

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. J.K. Moolchandani

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. R. S. Bhardwaj

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

01/04/2021

One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the registered patta issued in favour of the

petitioner could not have been cancelled in revision by the

Additional District Collector, Karauli.

Learned counsel further submits that with regard to the

concerned plot in question, the petitioner was entitled to receive a

patta from the Gram Panchayat and the patta issued in favour of

the revision petitioner-respondent No.1, was illegal and was

wrongly obtained. Learned counsel submits that the revision has

wrongly been allowed by the Additional District Collector, Karauli.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

submits that a civil suit is pending between the respondent and

(2 of 5)

[CW-14206/2020]

the petitioner filed by the respondent seeking injunction as against

the petitioner but this fact was not brought to the knowledge of

the Panchayat while the patta was issued in favour of the

petitioner. The respondent purchased the said plot on 29.05.2012

from the petitioner. However, later on the petitioner sold the said

property after obtaining the patta from the Panchayat to one

Dharamveer S/o Maharaj Singh on 16.08.2019 by agreement to

sell.

Learned counsel has pointed out that the Panchayat had no

authority in law to allot the land by way of releasing patta in

favour of the petitioner as it was contrary to the Rule 157(1) of

the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1996. Learned counsel points

out that the order passed by the Additional District Collector,

Karauli takes into consideration all the aspects and does not

warrant any interference.

I have considered the submissions.

This Court finds that the property in question was of Jagirdar

and had come into possession of the Panchayat Samiti,

Hindauncity. The provision of Rule 157(1) of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1996 lays down the procedure and manner in

which the land available with the Panchayat can be disposed of.

For the said purpose, concerned Panchayat will have to look into

whether there is any person having the old possession on the

property. From the facts which have come on the record, it shows

that both the parties do not have the old possession but they

claimed the patta on the basis of agreement to sell on the

purchase of the property. Thus, the allotment of pattas which are

two in number, one in favour of the petitioner and another in

favour of the respondents are found to be contrary to the

(3 of 5)

[CW-14206/2020]

provisions of Rule 157(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,

1996.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur

in S.B. C.W.P. No.8887/2017 Ghewar Chand & Anr. Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. has held as under:-

“However, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Mithoo Sahani’s case(supra) has

considered the judgment rendered in Partumal’s case (supra)

and disapproved the same while observing as under:

“(9) The next point that was urged was

that the appellant had been granted sanads on

January 12, 1956 and that their sanads could

not be cancelled and the title acquired

thereunder displaced except in accordance with

the terms of the sanads. T