Shanker Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2749 Raj

(1 of 7) [CW-9438/2018]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9438/2018

Gopal Patel S/o Subtaramji, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Ghanchi, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sirohi

2. The District Collector, Sirohi

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4839/2018 Smt. Leela Devi W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji Mali, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through - Tehsildar, Sirohi.

2. The District Collector, Sirohi.

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9442/2018 Sita Devi W/o Shri Darga Ji, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Mali, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sirohi

2. The District Collector, Sirohi

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9450/2018 Shanti Devi Spouse/o Jogaram Ji, Aged About 68 Years, B/c Ghanchi , Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sirohi

2. The District Collector, Sirohi

----Respondents

(2 of 7) [CW-9438/2018]

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9459/2018 Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Sitaram Ji, Aged About 68 Years, By Caste Mali, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- Tehsildar Sirohi.

2. The District Collector, Sirohi.

----Respondents (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9567/2018 Dilip Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh Ji, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Suthar, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- Tehsildar, Sirohi.

2. The District Collector, Sirohi.

----Respondents (7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9569/2018 Manju Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Ji, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Ghanchi, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- Tehsildar, Sirohi.

2. The District Collector, Sirohi.

----Respondents (8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9690/2018 Amrit Lal S/o Ganeshaji, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Mali, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sirohi

2. The District Collector, Sirohi

----Respondents (9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9692/2018 Mohan Lal S/o Oataram Ji Suthar, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Suthar, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi

(3 of 7) [CW-9438/2018]

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sirohi

2. The District Collector, Sirohi

----Respondents (10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9879/2018 Lehri Bai W/o Shri Lala Ram Ji Patel, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Ghanchi, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sirohi

2. The District Collector, Sirohi

----Respondents (11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11328/2018 Shanker Singh S/o Late Shri Wagat Singh, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste Rajput, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- Tehsildar, Sirohi.

2. The District Collector, Sirohi.

----Respondents (12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11332/2018 Sita Devi W/o Shri Dhanraj Ji Patel, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Ghanchi, Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- Tehsildar, Sirohi.

2. The District Collector, Sirohi.

----Respondents (13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11371/2018 Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Shri Shanker Lal Ji Ghanchi, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Ghanchi, Resident Of Krishnapuri, Adarsh Nagar Road, Sirohi.

                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                  Versus



                                             (4 of 7)                  [CW-9438/2018]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through - Tehsildar, Sirohi.

2. The District Collector, Sirohi.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Ram Dayal



                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                       Order

02/02/2021

1. The present bunch of writ petitions involve a challenge to

proceedings of revision initiated by the Tehsildar - Sirohi for

setting aside registered pattas which have been issued in

petitioners' favour.

2. As facts and questions to be determined are common and

identical, all these petitions are being decided simultaneously;

however, for the purpose of clarity, facts of SB Civil Writ Petition

No.9438/2018 (Gopal Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) are

being taken into reckoning.

3. The petitioner herein was conferred title over a land

admeasuring 1250 sq. feet area of Khasra No.1218 of Revenue

Village, Sirohi (on the basis of his possession), by the Municipal

Council, Sirohi. A registered patta dated 13.01.2015 in this regard

came to be issued in his favour.

4. The respondent - Tehsildar tried to dispossess the petitioner

in spite of the fact that he was having registered patta for which

the petitioner filed a civil suit along with application for temporary

injunction. Learned Civil Judge allowed application for temporary

injunction vide its order dated 27.09.2016 and directed the

(5 of 7) [CW-9438/2018]

respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, without adopting due

process of law.

5. It appears that in light of the injunction granted by the Trial

Court, the Tehsildar - Sirohi moved an application under Section

312 & 327 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (herein

referred to as "the Act of 2009") and requested the District

Collector to quash the registered patta deed No.10 so granted in

favour of the petitioner.

6. The Tehsildar alleged in his revision application that the

subject land did not belong to the Municipal Council and the same

was Govt. land and thus, the Municipal Council did not have any

authority to grant patta in petitioner's favour.

7. A notice dated 13.03.2018 came to be issued by the District

Collector Sirohi, whereagainst the petitioners have preferred the

present writ petition.

8. Mr. Suniel Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners,

argued that impugned proceedings initiated by the Collector are

without jurisdiction and contrary to settled position of law.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the District Collector in

exercise of his revisional powers, can neither question the legality

of registered patta nor can he set aside the same.

10. It is also argued that grant of patta or execution of

registered conveyance deed/lease deed confers an irreversible

property/civil right in favour of the citizen, which cannot be set at

naught in exercise of executive power and a registered patta can

only be quashed and set aside by competent Civil Court.

11. In support of his contentions aforesaid, learned counsel

relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in case of

Ramchandra Vs. The District Collector, Hanumangarh & Ors

(6 of 7) [CW-9438/2018]

reported in 2016 (3) WLC (Raj.) 627. Learned counsel also pointed

out that Division Bench vide its order dated 01.11.2017 affirmed

the aforementioned Single Bench judgment in the case of

Ramchandra (supra). Court's attention was also drawn to another

judgment dated 20.09.2018 rendered in case of Naina Ram Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.11033/2015) to submit that

in identical matter, Coordinate Bench has allowed the writ petition

involving such issue.

12. Mr. Ram Dayal, Deputy Government Counsel appearing for

Tehsildar inviting Court's attention towards jamabandi of the

subject land submitted that the Municipal Council did not have the

authority to allot the land, as the subject land was recorded as

Government land in the revenue record.

13. It was also argued that since the land did not belong to

Municipal Council, the decision to grant patta and the issuance of

Patta was per se without jurisdiction and thus, the District

Collector/State Government in exercise of its revisional powers

can set aside or quash the said decision.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the State was however, not in

a position to bring to the notice of this Court any view contrary to

the law laid down in Ramchandra's case (supra) by this Court or

by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

15. Having regard to the submissions made by rival counsel and

after considering the Judgment of Ramchandra (Supra), this Court

is of the considered view that registered patta granted in favour of

petitioners cannot be annulled by the District Collector or any

revisional authority in exercise of its revisional power.

16. The registered patta can only be questioned in a suit or set

aside by a Civil Court.

(7 of 7) [CW-9438/2018]

17. Indisputably, all the petitions lay challenge to revisional

proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar and the plots of the land of

all the petitioners are adjoining or are situated at the same

khasra.

18. This being the position, all the writ petitions are allowed;

impugned notices dated 13.03.2018 issued to the petitioner(s)

herein and proceedings in furtherance thereof, are quashed.

19. Needless to observe that State shall be free to file a Civil suit

(if so desired) in accordance with law.

20. Observations made by this Court will not prejudice rights of

either of the parties, as this Court has not pronounced upon merit

of petitioners' rights in any manner.

21. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 102-114-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)