Rajasthan High Court
Bundu Khan Son Of Ladu Khan vs Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jhag on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5324/2022
Bundu Khan Son of Ladu Khan, Age about 62 Years, Resident of
Village- Jhag, Tehsil Mozmabad, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jhag, Panchayat Samiti Dudu,
Tehsil Mozmabad, District Jaipur.
2. Satyanarayan Son of Shriya Lal, Resident of Village Jhag,
Tehsil Mozmabad, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
27/07/2022
This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated
22.02.2022 passed by the Court of Learned Additional District
Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Dudu, District Jaipur in
revision petition No. 32/2021 whereby, while allowing the revision
petition preferred by the respondent No.2, the Patta No. 191
issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 filed
a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994 seeking cancellation of Patta No. 191 dated
21.10.2009 issued by the Gram Panchayat Jhag, Panchayat Samiti
Dudu, District Jaipur in favour of the petitioner. The revision
petition has been allowed by the Court of Additional District
(2 of 4) [CW-5324/2022]
Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Dudu vide judgment
dated 22.02.2022, the subject matter of challenge.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially
the revision petition was filed in the Court of Additional Collector
(III) Jaipur, District Jaipur which, vide order dated 13.07.2020,
was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Collector
and Additional District Magistrate, Dudu without issuing any notice
to him or without it being endorsed by his learned counsel on the
order sheet. He, drawing attention towards the judgment dated
30.04.2018 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dudu
District Jaipur in civil case No. 18/2015 (1/2013) NCV No.
626/2014, submitted that the suit filed by the respondent No.2 for
permanent injunction came to be dismissed and hence, there was
no occasion for the learned Revisional Court to have cancelled his
Patta. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the
judgment dated 22.02.2022 be quashed and the revision petition
filed by the respondent No. 2 be quashed and set aside.
Heard. Considered.
A perusal of record reveals that in response to service of
summons of the revision petition, the petitioner had put in
appearance before the Additional Collector (III) Jaipur on
19.01.2021. On that day, the matter was adjourned for
02.02.2021. On 02.02.2021, the matter was transferred to the
Court of Additional District Collector Dudu in presence of the
learned counsels for the respective parties. Thereafter, vide its
order dated 22.02.2022, the revision petition has been allowed by
the Additional District Collector on its merit. Thus, it is apparent
that the matter was transferred to the Court of Additional District
Collector (Dudu) in presence of the learned counsel for the
(3 of 4) [CW-5324/2022]
petitioner. This fact is neither disputed and denied in the memo of
the writ petition nor, during the course of the argument. The only
submission has been that the order sheet dated 02.02.2021 does
not bear endorsement of the petitioner's counsel which is of no
significance in view of the order having been passed in his
presence. Even otherwise also, it is trite law that intimation to
his/her counsel is sufficient intimation of the order/proceeding to a
litigant. Moreover, the case was transferred way back on
02.02.2021 and the judgment has been passed more than a year
thereafter, i.e., on 22.02.2022 but, no plausible reason has been
assigned by the petitioner for not making any inquiry about the
status of the revision petition in the interregnum.
In these circumstances, this court is not persuaded to hold
that the order dated 22.02.2022 was passed without giving
sufficient opportunity of representation to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any
infirmity in the judgment dated 22.02.2022 allowing, the revision
petition on merits of the case. The revisional authority has
cancelled the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner after
appreciating that a Patta No. 24 dated 01.12.1980 of the subject
land was already issued in favour of the Ramesh Haldiya and
hence, subsequent Patta for the same land deserves to be
cancelled and without challenge to this finding, even otherwise
also, rendering an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall be
of no significance.
The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the judgment
dated 30.04.2018 whereby, the learned trial Court has dismissed
the suit filed by the respondent No.2 for permanent injunction, is
misplaced and misconceived. Indisputably, the suit was for
(4 of 4) [CW-5324/2022]
permanent injunction only in which title of the parties qua the
subject land was not an issue.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Ashu/56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
