Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khusal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 March, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 175/2020
Khusal Singh, By Caste Rajpurohit, R/o Village Basni Manana,
Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Additional Collector-1, Jodhpur
3. Jan Swasthya Abhiyantrik Vibhag, Upkhad Mandore Head
Quarter Jodhpur Through Assistant Abhiyanta
4. Gram Panchayat Bawarli, Tehsil Balesar, Dist. Jodhpur
Through Sarpanch.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Malam Singh Rajpurohit through
VC
For Respondent(s) : ---
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
Date of pronouncement: 03/03/2022
By the Court: PER HON'BLE BORANA, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
14.01.2020 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ
petition of the petitioner-appellant challenging the order dated
20.09.2007 quashing his patta had been dismissed.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in terms of
Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter
referred to as, "the Act of 1994"), Collector was the only authority
authorized to exercise the power of revision in terms of
notification dated 13.12.2001 issued by the State Government. In
(2 of 4) [SAW-175/2020]
the present matter the revisional order under challenge has been
passed by the Additional Collector which, in terms of Section 97 of
the Act of 1994, is beyond his jurisdiction.
Section 2 (vi) of the Act of 1994 reads as under:
""Collector" means Collector of a District and
includes Additional Collector."
A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that in
terms of law, an Additional Collector can exercise the same rights
as exercised by a Collector and vide notification dated 13.12.2004
the said power has been delegated by the State Government. As
held by the learned Single Judge, the power of revisional
jurisdiction exercised by the Additional Collector was therefore,
perfectly valid.
The second ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is
that the grant of patta was perfectly in terms of Rule 157 of
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Rules of 1996").
So far as the ground of issuance of patta being in
conformation to Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 is concerned, the
same has been dealt in detail by the learned Single Judge and a
specific finding has been recorded to the effect that:
Firstly, the patta pertains to land ad measuring 537.41 sq.
yards whereas Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 specifies for limit of
300 sq. yards by the Gram Panchayat on the fixed rates. In cases
where the area exceeds 300 sq. yards, it has to be on the rates
recommended by District Level Committee, which has admittedly
not been done in the present matter.
(3 of 4) [SAW-175/2020]
Secondly, there was no residential house constructed on the
allotted land which was sine qua non for the implementation of
Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996.
Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:
"(1) Where the persons are in possession of the
old houses on Abadi land and desire to get a
patta issued, patta may be issued by the
Panchayat in Form XXIII-A after depositing the
charges as under:-
(i) For area upto 300 sq. yards or constructed
area including 25 percent of constructed are
subject to maximum area 300 sq. yards:
(a) For old houses constructed Rs.100/-
more than fifty years before
the date of commencement
of these rules
(b) For old houses constructed Rs.200/-
during the fifty years
immediately preceding
the date of commencement
of these rules.
(ii) For area, exceeding the area specified in
clause (i) above, on such excess area 25 percent
of the market rates recommended by the District
Level Committee constituted under clause (b) of
rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004:
Provided that no fees shall be charged under
sub-clause (a) and only 10 percent fees shall be
charged under sub-clause (b) of clause (I) above
from the families included in the list of below
poverty line."
Thirdly, the complete area of 537.41 sq. yards has been
allotted only for an amount of Rs.200 which also is clearly in
contravention to the conditions as specified in Rule 157 of the
Rules of 1996.
The third ground raised by counsel for the appellant is that
the registered sale cannot be cancelled by revisional authority.
Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment reported as
(4 of 4) [SAW-175/2020]
2015(2) RRT 967 (Manohar Lal Vs. District Collector, Barmer &
Ors.).
So far as the judgment passed in Manohar Lal (supra) on
which counsel for the appellant has relied upon is concerned, as
observed by the learned Single Judge, the same had specifically
been considered by the Division Bench in the cases of Jhumar
Ram vs. Addl. District Collector (Second), Jodhpur (D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.656/2017) and Kamla Devi vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.136/2017) and it has been
held that the patta issued by Gram Panchayat in contravention to
the Rules of 1996 can be quashed in exercise of powers under
Section 97 of the Act of 1994.
No other ground has been raised by appellant in the present
appeal.
In view of the above observations, no ground for interference
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge is made out.
Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
9-T.Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
