Smt. Pankhu Bai vs Shailesh Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1101 Raj

(1 of 4) [SAW-16/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 16/2022

Smt. Pankhu Bai W/o Shri Hansaramji Mali, Aged About 55 Years, Rajmata Dharamshala Road, Sirohi.

----Appellant Versus

1. Shailesh Kumar S/o Shri Praveen Kumar, Rajmata Dharamshala Road, Sirohi.

2. Mohan Mali S/o Shri Nathuji Mali, Rajmata Dharamshala Road, Sirohi.

3. Narendra S/o Shri Jaisaram Mali, Rajmata Dharamshala Road, Sirohi.

4. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Amritlal Mali, Rajmata Dharamshala Road, Sirohi.

5. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Jethalal Sagarwanshi, Rajmata Dharamshala Road, Sirohi.

6. Dhularam S/o Shri Devaji Mali, Rajmata Dharamshala Road, Sirohi.

7. District Collector, Sirohi.

8. Municipal Council, Sirohi Through Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sirohi.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Judgment

24/01/2022

By way of this intra court appeal, the appellant herein

has approached this court for assailing the order dated

15.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench of this court

accepting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13126/2017 preferred by the

(2 of 4) [SAW-16/2022]

respondents-writ petitioners. The learned Single Bench held that

the land allotted to the appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ

petition) is not covered by the definition of strip land and thus, the

order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the District Collector, Sirohi,

whereby allotment was made to the appellant was quashed and

and the amount paid by the appellant towards the allotment was

directed to be refunded.

Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel representing the

appellant, submitted that the allotment of the strip land was made

to the appellant by the Municipality strictly in accordance with the

provisions of the Municipalities Act after inviting objections from

the public at large. The objections were considered, the allotment

was made and a registered sale deed was executed in favour of

the appellant. He urged that the respondent-writ petitioners have

filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Sirohi for cancelling the

allotment as well as the registered sale deed executed in favour of

the appellant and for restraining her from using the land in

question.

The writ petitioners challenged the allotment of land

made in favour of the appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ

petition) by filing a revision before the District Collector, which was

dismissed on 29.03.2016 observing that the validity of the

registered sale deed/allotment letter cannot be examined while

exercising revisional powers under Section 327 of the Rajasthan

Municipalities Act, 2009 and that such an issue can only be

examined by a civil court. Mr. Kotwani relied upon this court's

judgment in the case of the State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt.

Parvati Devi & Ors. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)

No.899/2017 decided on 01.11.2017], wherein the Division

(3 of 4) [SAW-16/2022]

Bench held that a registered sale deed can only be set aside by a

decree of Civil court and not otherwise. He, thus, urges that the

order passed by the Single Bench accepting the writ petition of the

respondents and quashing the allotment order and the registered

sale deed issued in favour of the appellant is absolutely unjust and

illegal and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Shah, learned counsel

representing the respondents Nos.1 to 6 (writ petitioners),

vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's

counsel. However, he too is not in position to dispute the fact that

five of the writ petitioners are plaintiffs in the Civil Suit

(Annex.R/2) preferred in the Civil Court, Sirohi for declaration and

cancellation of the allotment of strip land and for cancellation of

the registered sale deed No.2491/2014 executed in favour of the

appellant. In the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Parvati

Devi & Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of this court has held in no

unequivocal terms that the domain of examining validity of

registered sale deed is purely of Civil Court.

In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the

District Collector, Sirohi was absolutely justified in dismissing the

revision preferred by the respondents writ petitioners observing

that the jurisdiction to examine validity of the registered allotment

deed lies exclusively with the Civil Court concerned. The learned

Single Bench, while deciding the controversy by way of the

impugned judgment dated 15.12.2021 failed to address this

pertinent objection raised by the appellant's counsel regarding the

maintainability of the revision and the aspect regarding

jurisdiction of the District Collector, Sirohi to entertain the

challenge referred to supra. As the revision itself was filed before

(4 of 4) [SAW-16/2022]

a forum not having jurisdiction, there was no justification to

entertain a writ petition against the dismissal of the revision.

As a consequence, we are of the opinion that the

impugned order does not stand to scrutiny as the same is contrary

to the settled principles of law and the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court referred to supra in the case of State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Parvati Devi & Ors.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The

impugned judgment dated 15.12.2021 is reversed. The Civil Court

is requested to expedite the proceedings of the suit preferred by

some of the writ petitioners and shall try to conclude the same

within a period of one year from the date of lifting of the

restrictions imposed owing to the Covid pandemic.

The appeal is allowed in these terms. No order as to

cost.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

41-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)