Rajasthan High Court
Ram Niwas S/O Ramnarayan vs Bhagwan Sharma S/O Shri Durga Lal on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12610/2021
1. Ram Niwas S/o Ramnarayan, R/o Bundi Ka Gothada,
Gram Panchayat Bundi Ka Gothada, Panchayat Samiti
Hindoli, District Bundi (Since Deceased) Through Legal
Representatives -
2. Mst. Nanda Bai, W/o Late Shri Ramniwas
3. Suresh Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ramniwas
4. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ramniwas
5. Brahmanand Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ramniwas
6. Vishnu Prasad S/o Late Shri Ramniwas,
All Residents Of Bundi Ka Gothada, Gram Panchayat
Bundi Ka Gothada, Panchayat Samiti Hindoli, District
Bundi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Bhagwan Sharma S/o Shri Durga Lal, R/o Gothada, Gram
Panchayat Bundi Ka Gothada, Panchayat Samiti Hindoli,
District Bundi (Raj.)
2. Gram Panchayat Bundi Ka Gothada, Panchayat Samiti
Hindoli, District Bundi Through Sarpanch - Gram
Panchayat Bundi Ka Gothada
3. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bundi Ka Gothada, Panchayat
Samiti Hindoli, District Bundi.
4. Additional District Collector, Bundi, District Bundi (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jinesh Jain
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
29/06/2022
This writ petition assails the legality and validity of the
judgement dated 07.04.2021 passed by the Court of Additional
(2 of 3) [CW-12610/2021]
District Collector, Bundi whereby, the revision petition filed by the
petitioner against issuance of patta dated 03.10.2011 by the Gram
Panchayat Bundi Ka Gothada in favour of the respondent No.1, has
been dismissed.
The facts in brief are that on an application filed by the
respondent No.1 for issuance of patta of a piece of land under his
possession for last about 50 years measuring 15x10.6 sq. feet
situated towards southern side of his house, the Gram Panchayat
Bundi Ka Gothada, after following the procedure as prescribed,
granted him patta No.8734 dated 03.10.2011. Validity of the patta
was assailed by the petitioner by way of a revision petition under
Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which has
been dismissed by the Court of Additional District Collector, Bundi
vide its judgement dated 07.04.2021, the subject matter of
challenge.
The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the
revision petition on the premise that the petitioner failed to
establish that the land of patta in question was part of public way;
whereas, from the material on record it was established that it
constituted part of public way. In this regard, learned counsel for
the petitioner referred the certificate dated 20.08.2011 issued by
the Patwari, Patwar Mandal Gothada as also the patta dated
03.10.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no land
towards either side of the disputed land is vacant which clearly
reflects that it was part of the public way. He, therefore, prayed
that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned judgment
dated 07.04.2021 be quashed and set aside.
(3 of 3) [CW-12610/2021]
Heard. Considered.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
absence of any vacant land towards either side of the disputed
land is evident of the fact that it is a public way, cannot be
countenanced inasmuch as a public way presupposes its
continuation on either side in absence of a specific case that it
ends at the specified place. Had the disputed land been part of the
public way, it ought to have contained open land towards its either
side. Rather, from the certificate dated 20.08.2011 and the patta
dated 03.10.2011, it is established that the land in question is
surrounded on three sides by others' land; i.e., on one side, a
Nohra, on another side, a school and on third side, the residential
house of the respondent No.1 and has its opening on the public
way only. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the Revisional Authority did not err in recording a categorical
finding that the petitioner could not establish from the material on
record as subject land was part of the public way.
Resultantly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is
dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/35
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
