Rambuksh Alias Ramnarain vs State Of Raj. And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 14317 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1081/2014

Udairam S/o Rambuksh alias Ramnarain, aged 32 years, by Caste Bhati, resident of Village Reh, Tehsil Kareda, District Bhilwara [Raj.].

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through District Collector Bhilwara

2. Sukhdev S/o Shankarlal, by Caste Dholi, resident of Village Reh, Tehsil Kareda, District Bhilwara.

3. Gram Panchayat Dahimata, Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District Bhilwara, through its Sarpanch.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1068/2014 Rambuksh Alias Ramnarain S/o Onar Bhati, aged 35 years, by Caste Bhati, resident of Village Reh, Tehsil Kareda, District Bhilwara [Raj].

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through District Collector Bhilwara

2. Sukhdev S/o Shankarlal, by Caste Dholi, resident of Village Reh, Tehsil Kareda, District Bhilwara.

3. Gram Panchayat Dahimata, Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District Bhilwara, through its Sarpanch.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Paramveer Singh
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. K. K. Bissa, AGC
                               Mr. Pritam Solanki



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                    Order

06/12/2022

     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In both the above mentioned writ petitions, common

question of law and fact is involved, therefore, they are being

disposed of by this common judgment.

The present writ petitions arise out of the order dated

20.09.2013 passed by revisional authority whereby the revisions

preferred by the respondent No.2 Sukhdev has been allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners were issued valid pattas in their favour in Village Reh,

Gram Panchayat Dahimata, District Bhilwara. Learned counsel

submits that the petitioners have constructed the dwelling houses

upon the lands in question for which a valid patta was issued by

the Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the revisional

authority allowed the revision petitions of the respondent No.2

only on the ground that the pattas issued in favour of the

petitioners are forged since they bear same receipt number. He

submits that it was a typographical error and that as per the

ledger of account maintained by the Gram Panchayat, there are

two different entries in the name of the petitioners and the receipt

numbers are 13 & 20 for the amounts received by the Gram

Panchayat. He, therefore, submits that when the two entries exist

in the ledger (Rokadbahi) of the Gram Panchayat, then the receipt

number for the amount received by the Gram Panchayat is also

distinctly mentioned being 13 & 20. He further submits that

merely by typographical mistake, if the same receipt number is

shown in both the pattas, the same cannot be a ground to assume

that the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners are not genuine.

He submits that the entire material placed before the revisional

authority was not considered while deciding the revision petitions

preferred by respondent No.2 Sukhdev. He further submits that

writ petitions may be allowed and the impugned orders dated

20.09.2013 may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

there are other infirmities in the pattas issued to the petitioners as

the name of the Secretary shown in the pattas was not the person

who was holding the Office of Secretary at the relevant time. He

further submits that the findings by the revisional authority does

not call for any interference by this Court. The two pattas issued,

cannot have a common receipt number on the amount received by

the Gram Panchayat. He, therefore, submits that forgery has been

committed by the Gram Panchayat while issuing pattas in favour

of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has also

disputed the existence of the dwelling houses on the subject piece

of land for which the pattas have been issued. He, therefore,

prays that the writ petitions may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the impugned orders dated 20.09.2013.

The revisional authority has decided the revision petitions

only on the ground that on the two pattas issued to the

petitioners, the same receipt number i.e. 20 is mentioned, thus

they are not genuine. The revisional authority has concluded that

forgery has been committed therefore, the pattas issued in favour

of the petitioners cannot be legally sustained.

The discussion made by the revisional authority in the

present case is devoid of a proper reasoning. There is no material

available with the revisional authority to conclude that " v/khuLFk xzke

iapk;r us rFkkdfFkr iV~Vk feyhHkxr djds xSj&fuxjkdkj la[;k 1 ds i{k esa cuk;k tkuk

fl) gSA"

For this sweeping finding recorded by the revisional authority

neither any proper reasoning has been given nor any material has

been placed before it.

This Court is of the considered opinion that merely common

mentioning of two receipt numbers on two pattas cannot be a

ground to assume that the pattas issued by the Gram Panchayat

were illegal and are not authentic.

In view of the discussions made above, the present writ

petitions are disposed of and the order dated 20.09.2013 is

quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the

revisional authority to decide the same afresh after calling

relevant record from the Gram Panchayat and after giving

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties strictly

in accordance with law. For the purpose, the parties are directed

to appear before the revisional authority on 10.01.2023 and

thereafter as and when the date fixed by the revisional authority.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 26-27/KashishS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)