Tej Karan vs Union Of India And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7550 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3560/2004
Tej Karan S/o Late Shri Narayan, Resident of Man Town, Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. Union Of India through D.R.M. (Works), Western Railway, Kota
Jn. (Raj.)
2. Municipal Committee, Sawai Madhopur Through its Executive
Officer.
3. Director Cum Special Govt. Secretary, Raj. Panchayat Raj
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. S. N. Kumawat, Adv.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Amit Jindal, Adv.
                               Mr. B. K. Sharma, Adv.


    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
                                    Order

ORDER RESERVED ON                        ::                     28.11.2022


ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                       ::                    30.11.2022

This Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated

30.08.2002 and 02.08.2003 passed by respondent No.3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent

No.3 had wrongly cancelled the patta issued in favour of the

petitioner by Gram Panchayat, Alanpur. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that Gram Panchayat, Alanpur invited the

application for allotment of land and petitioner had applied the

same and deposited the demanded money vide receipt No.17

dated 15.02.1961 and Gram Panchayat issued the patta in favour

(2 of 4) [CW-3560/2004]

of the petitioner on 30.01.1963. Learned counsel for the petitioner

also submits that at the relevant time of allotment, the said land

was recorded in the name of the Gram Panchayat in revenue

records. Thereafter, Gram Panchayat was abolished and land was

vested in notified area committee. After that, notified committee

was also abolished and land was vested in Municipal Committee,

Sawai Madhopur. Since then, the land in question was under the

supervision and territorial limits of Municipal Committee. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent Nos.1 and

2 reached on the site dated 17.11.1994 & 19.11.1994 and

threatened the petitioner to remove his shop. After that, petitioner

had filed a civil suit against the respondents. Learned counsel for

the petitioner also submits that temporary injunction was also

granted in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that civil suit filed by the petitioner was

decreed in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 11.08.2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondents

had filed an appeal of the said order and the same is pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the civil

suit, issue No.4 was framed as "whether the Gram Panchayat,

Alanpur had no right to sale the disputed land or petitioner had

made forged sale deed". Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that the said issue was to be proved by the respondents

but respondents failed to adduce the evidence on the said issue

was decided in favour of the petitioner. So, it is an admitted

position that Gram Panchayat, Alanpur had right to sale the land

and patta issued by Gram Panchayat was valid. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submits that respondents had filed the

(3 of 4) [CW-3560/2004]

revision for cancellation of patta. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that after a lapse of 39 years, respondent

No.3 had cancelled the said patta on wrong grounds vide order

dated 30.08.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits

that petitioner had filed the review petition of this order but said

review was also dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2003. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that after a lapse of 39

years, genuineness of the patta could not be challenged. So,

petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) Renu Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors. reported in 2015 (4) DNJ 1853 and (2) Joint Collector

Ranga Reddy District & Anr. Vs. D. Narsing Rao & Ors.

reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that respondents had filed an appeal of the learned Civil

Court's order and also submitted that revision order dated

30.08.2002 is well reasoned in which respondents clearly stated

that petitioner had sought disputed land from the Railway to store

his goods on 05.02.1990. So, at that time, disputed patta was not

in existence. If he had the said patta at that time then there would

be no occasion for demanding of land from Railway. So, order of

cancellation of patta was well reasoned. So, petition be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondents.

(4 of 4) [CW-3560/2004]

It is an admitted position that petitioner had sought the

disputed land from Railway to put his goods on 05.02.1990. This

clearly shows that petitioner had no patta of the disputed land at

that time. So, revisional authority rightly came to the conclusion

that petitioner had made forged patta. In my considered opinion,

revisional authority had not committed any mistake in canceling

the said patta. So, present petition is being devoid of merits and

liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, the petition filed by the petition stands dismissed.

Stay application also stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /58

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)