Smt. Antar Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1395 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 641/2021

Smt. Antar Kanwar W/o Late Shri Sher Singh, Aged About 87 Years, At Present Resident Of Village Padroo Tehsil Siwana District Barmer (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Barmer (Raj.).

2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer (Raj.).

3. Gram Panchayat Kankhi, Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kankhi, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer (Raj.).

4. Inspector (Land Record), Circle Siwana, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer (Raj.).

5. Deepa Ram S/o Sh. Ganesha Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Pau, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer (Raj.).

6. LRs Of Late Sh. Sher Singh, S/o Dh. Dhan Singh

7. Bheem Singh, Aged About 57 Years, At Present R/o Village Padroo Tehsil Siwana District Barmer (Raj.).

8. Ridmal Singh S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh, Aged About 55 Years, At Present R/o Village Padroo Tehsil Siwana District Barmer (Raj.).

9. Kamal Kanwar D/o Late Sh. Sher Singh W/o Sh. Umed Singh, Aged About 48 Years, At Present R/o Village Dadusan, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).

10. Ganpat Singh S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh, Aged About 44 Years, At Present R/o Village Padroo Tehsil Siwana District Barmer (Raj.).

11. Dalpat Singh S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh, Aged About 41 Years, At Present R/o Village Padroo Tehsil Siwana District Barmer (Raj.).

12. Uttam Singh S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh, Aged About 37 Years, At Present R/o Village Padroo Tehsil Siwana District Barmer (Raj.).

13. Ganesh Kanwar D/o Late Sh. Sher Singh, Aged About 32 Years, At Present R/o Village Dabaal, Tehsil Sanchore,

(2 of 4) [SAW-641/2021]

District Jalore (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Appellant(s), : Mr. Narpat Singh Arha through V.C.

For Respondent(s) : ---

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

28/01/2022

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 06.09.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1031/2020.

The appellant-original petitioner had challenged an order

dated 19.07.2017 passed by the District Collector, Barmer

rejecting the revision petition filed by the original petitioner. In

the revision petition filed before the District Collector, the original

petitioner had challenged the patta proposed to be granted by the

Gram Panchayat in favour of the private respondent. According to

the petitioner, there were no requisite documents and therefore,

the same was wrongly granted. The Collector dismissed the

revision petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to

establish any title over the land and also on delay and laches. The

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground

that without there being any patta in favour of the petitioner, the

Gram Panchayat could not have issued a certificate/proposal with

regard to the land in question in favour of the petitioner. The

original petitioner is, therefore, in appeal.

                                            (3 of 4)                 [SAW-641/2021]



     Learned     counsel       for     the      appellant-original       petitioner

vehemently contended that there were no documents supporting

the so called patta granted by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the

private respondent. The revision petition was filed in terms of

Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which authorises the

District Collector to act suo moto. Mere fact that the petitioner

had not been able to produce any documents in her favour in

relation to the land was not the right reason for dismissing the

revision petition.

In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has committed no

error. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any documents

showing any right, title or interest on the land in question.

Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act pertains to power

of revision and review by Government. Sub-section (1) of Section

97 provides that the State Government may, either of its own

motion or on an application from any person interested, call for

and examine the record of a Panchayati Raj institution or of a

standing committee or sub-committee thereof in respect of any

proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or

propriety of any decision or order passed therein and pass such

order as it appears to the State Government appropriate. Sub-

section (1) of Section 97 thus while allowing the State

Government to act suo moto, also recognizes the right of a person

interested to call in question any order or proceeding of

Panchayati Raj institution or the standing committee or sub-

committee thereof. This provision cannot be construed as to

permitting even a person who has no locus to invoke the power of

Sub-section (1) of Section 97. Sub-section (1) of Section 97 has a

(4 of 4) [SAW-641/2021]

dual purpose; to enable a person interested to question any of the

proceedings or order of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj and as also

enables the State Government to act suo moto.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

92-MohitTak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)