Una Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8137 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33690]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7732/2020

1. Una Lal S/o Late Shri Paru Lal, Aged About 79 Years, R/o Luni, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur At Present R/o Near Narsing Dara, Jodhpur Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

2. Kamlesh S/o Una Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Luni, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur At Present R/o Near Narsing Dara, Jodhpur Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

3. Rajesh S/o Una Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Luni, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur At Present R/o Near Narsing Dara, Jodhpur Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of Panchayatraj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur.

3. Gram Panchayat, Luni, Through Its Sarpanch, Village Luni, Tehsil And District Luni, District Jodhpur.

4. Chain Bharti S/o Late Shri Gunesh Bharti, B/c Bharti, R/o Village Luni, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.S. Gehlot Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Himanshu Bumb For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak Mr. Rajdeep Singh

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order 07/10/2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

a) that by an order, writ or direction may kindly be issued and the Order dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure-16) passed by learned Additional Collector, First, Jodhpur in proceeding

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (2 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

No.44/2019 titled as Chain Bhartati Vs. Una Lal (Annexure-

15) may kindle be quashed and set aside.

b) That by an order, writ or direction the entire proceeding of Revision Petition No.44/2019, titled as "Chain Bharati Vs. Una Lal (Annexure-15) may kindly be declared illegal, without jurisdiction and further same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

c) Any other order or direction relief which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father and grandfather of

the petitioners are having the possession over a piece of abadi

land at Luni from last 100 years. On 25.05.2001, an application

was submitted by Shri Paru Ram for obtaining the Patta of the

parental land before the Gram Panchayat Luni. After completion of

the proceedings, the Gram Panchayat issued Patta No.53 in favour

of the petitioners by way of proposal No.7 dated 20.05.2003. The

respondent No.3-Chain Bharti filed a revision petition under

Section 97 of the Panchayat Raj Act,1994 in the year 2012 before

the Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur on the ground that the land in

question did not vest in the abadi at the time of issuance of the

Patta. As the revision petition was preferred by the private

respondent after a period of nine years, an application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also preferred. The petitioner

submitted all the relevant documents before the Revisional Court.

On 19.05.2014 (Annexure-8), the Revisional Court passed an

order for site inspection of the land in question. On 15.12.2014,

the Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur passed an order while giving

certain direction to the concerned authorities for conducting an

enquiry for the said land in question. In pursuance of the said

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (3 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

order, an enquiry was initiated and a report was placed before the

Office of Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur on 11.01.2016

(Annexure-11). Further, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad

sent a communication to Vikas Adhikari, Luni with a direction to

conduct a detailed enquiry. The Additional Collector also sent a

communication dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure-13) to the Vikas

Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Luni for taking appropriate steps.

Thereafter, the private respondent filed an application before the

Addition Collector (I), Jodhpur on 29.03.2019 for calling the

enquiry report from the concerned authority. Upon such

application, the Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur registered a

review application and petitioner was served upon notices. The

Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur passed an order dated

17.03.2020 (Annexure-16) while directing the concerned

authorities to cancel the Patta issued in favour of the petitioners.

Being aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition has been

filed by the petitioners.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit that the

petitioner and their father and grandfather have been in

possession of the land in dispute since last 100 years and are

enjoying a peaceful possession of the same and upon which a

house has also been constructed by them. Learned senior counsel

for the petitioners also submit that the petitioners have been

issued the Patta in light of Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati

Raj Rules 1996 (hereinafter the rules of 1996) which pertains to

regularisation of old houses and thus, the respondents while

adhering to the provisions as laid down under Rule 157 of the

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (4 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

rules of 1996 have issued the Patta in favour of the petitioners

and thus, the same ought not to be cancelled by the respondents.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that the

Patta was issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 2003 after

adopting due process of law whereas the private respondent has

filed revision petition under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act in

the year 2012, after a delay of about nine years.. Thus, on the

ground of delay itself, the impugned orders deserves to be

quashed and set aside. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners

also places reliance upon the order dated 12.04.1999 passed in

SBCWP No.1672/1997, order dated 02.05.2013 passed in SBCWP

No.2421/2012 (Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the

order dated 19.05.2022 in SBCWP No.18087/2019 (Nisha Devi Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the relevant portion of the said

orders are reproduced hereunder:

SBCWP No.1672/1997

"In Dhanraj's Case uncontroverted facts were that the sale by the Gram panchayat was in favour of the persons who were relatives of the then Sarpanch. The land was in public use for a long time and it was situated inthe middle of the village and sale was surreptitious and not by public auction in the manner prescribed. That is not the case here. The facts of the present case are totally different. None of the petitioner is alleged to be relative of the then Sarpanch of the Panchayat. The sale was by public auction on the same day and in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Only because everything was done on one day that itself would not be a factor to interfere with the order of allotment after delay of about six years. It is also true that revision in absence of appeal was maintainable but it is clear that

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (5 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

instead of availing a statutory right of appeal, for the reasons best known to the state and other private respondents, revision was filed against the order of grant of Pattas after as many as six years. During this period, the petitioners have already raised construction on the land. This aspect of the case was not at all considered by the Addl. Collector while allowing the revision. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing the writ petition. When no period of Limitation is provided then it has to be filed within a reasonable period. Reasonable period depends upon the facts of each case. It can be at the most one or two years as held by this court in several decisions as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the instant case gross delay of six years. Which totally remain unexplained was sufficient for the Addl Collector to refuse to exercise his jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the learned Addl Collector has not at all considered this aspect of the matter.

In view of the above discussion this petition is allowed, the Impugned common order dated 29.3.97 passed by the Addl. Collector in allowing the revision petition is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. Stay order granted, if any, in this case, stands vacated."

SBCWP No.2421/2012(Hari Singh Vs State of

Rajasthan & Ors.)

"The validity was questioned on the ground that in the terms rules 1958, the panchayat was empowered to issue the pattas of the plots to the persons falling within the categories specified with the land area not exceeding 150 Sq yards and therefore the allotment of plots measuring 200 Sq. Yards made in favour of the petitioners here in de hors the Rules not sustainable in the eye of law.

Indisputably, the entitlement of the petitioner for allotment of land in terms of Rule 158 of of the Rules,

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (6 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

being the members of weaker section, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that as per amended Rules 158 a member of the weaker section specified may be allotted abadi land upto 300 Sq. Yard village abadis on the rate specified It is to be noticed that the allotment of the land was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1999 and validity thereof was questioned by the Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti by way of revision petition before revisional authority under Section 97 after a lapse of about 10 years. Moreover the petitioners have fairly offered to deposit present market value of land allotted in their favour in excess of 150 sq yards. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this court, it will not be appropriate to disturb the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners at this stage if they deposit present market value of the land allotted in their favour in excess of 150 Sq. yards Accordingly, with the consents of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitioners are disposed of in terms that the respondent-Gram Panchayat Chandur shall determine the present market value of the land allotted in favour of the petitioners in excess of 150 Sq. Yards and shall communicate the same to them within a period of two months, from the date of this order. The petitioner shall deposit the amount as determined by the Gram Panchayat within a period of one month thereafter. On the petitioners depositing the amount in terms of this order, the order impugned cancelling their pattes shall stand set aside and the pattas shall stand restored. It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to deposit the amount to be determined by the Gram Panchayat within the stipulated period, the order impugned cancelling the pattas shall remain operative. No order is to costs."

SBCWP No.18087/2019 (Nisha Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (7 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

"7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, this Court is of the view that the Pattas issued to the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat were under the bonafide impression that such land is abadi land and since no fraud has been played by any party and the proceedings as per law have been undertaken, therefore, interest of justice will be met, if the State Government is directed to consider the application preferred by the Gram Panchayat for regularizing such land from Charagah land to Abadi Land and for setting apart equal amount of land for Charagah in village Sareri or in the nearby area. It is also noted that the petitioners have constructed their dwelling houses on this Pattasud land for their residence. They have also constructed shops for earning their livelihood and such property is being enjoyed by them since 1997 or even prior to that. It is also an undisputed fact that the place where the Pattasud land of the petitioners is located, is now being occupied by a number of other houses and shops at village Sareri which clearly shows that the subject piece of land has now come in the abadi area of village Sareri.

8. In these circumstances, it will be too harsh to remove or displace the petitioners from their Pattasud land as the persons like the petitioners staying on this land come from the lowest rung of the society, therefore, this Court feels that their peaceful possession over the said land should not be disturbed.

9. In view of the discursions made above, the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners are allowed. The orders impugned dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Additional District Collector, Bhilwara in the revision petitions, consequential orders dated 14.07.2014 passed by S.D.M. Gulabpura District Bhilwara as well as notices dated 13.11.2019 issued by Tehsildar, Hurda District Bhilwara are quashed and set aside qua the petitioners."

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (8 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submit that

the petitioners have been picked and chosen for the said land in

question as about 157 Pattas have been allotted and eqnuiry has

not been initiated against any of the allottees by the respondent

authorities. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits

that on 21.03.2023, this Court had granted time to learned

counsel for the respondents to find out as to whether any action

has been initiated against the other similarly situated persons

holding the Patta for the same area. Learned senior counsel for

the petitioners further submits that the respondents have initiated

enquiry and filed revision petitions against the similarly situated

people after this Court has passed the order dated 21.03.2023

which is reproduced as under:-

"Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel submits that out of the 157 pattas issued, only the petitioner has been singled out even when they are of the same nature.

Mr. Manish Tak, learned Dy.GC. seeks two days' time to find out as to what the difference between the other pattas and the present petitioner and whether those other pattas have been cancelled or not.

List on 27.03.2023."

5. Learned senior counsel also submits that under Rule 157(1)(b)

(ii) of the Rules of 1996 the respondents can charge 25 percent of

the market rate for the excess area allotted in favour of the

petitioners and the petitioners are ready to deposit such excess

amount if charged by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that under the

provision of Rule 157 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 the Patta

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (9 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

can be issued only for an area upto 300 square yards whereas in

the present case, the petitioners have been issued Patta for

4961.72 square yards and thus, the same has been allotted in

favour of the petitioners dehors the provisions of law. Learned

counsel for the respondent-State also submits that there is no

provision in respect to allotment of Patta beyond the area of 300

square yards and thus, the order dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure-16)

has been rightly passed and the Patta issued in favour of the

petitioners have rightly been cancelled. Learned counsel for the

respondents placed reliance upon the order dated 03.03.2022

passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.175/2020 (Khushal Singh Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. and the said order is reproduced

hereunder:-

"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 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."

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (10 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

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.

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/-

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (11 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

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 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (12 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

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."

7. Learned counsel for the respondent also submit that in view

of the amendment made in Rule 157 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

Rules, 1966 the Rule 157(1)(b)(ii) has been deleted. Learned

counsel for the respondents supplied a copy of the amendment

provision & the same is reproduced as under:-

""Rule 157. Regularisation of old houses.(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.

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.

[Provided further that during the period of Prashasan Gaon

Ke Sang Abhiyan, 2021, the fee shall be charged at the

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (13 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

rate of equivalent to fifty percent of the rates specified

under clause (i) and (ii) above.]

[(2) Families who do not have any house or house site

anywhere and are in possession of abadi land by way of

construction of a hutment/Kucha house up to year 2003

shall be entitled for regularisation of possession maximum

up to 300 yards free of cost. The patta of such land (in

form XXIII-B) shall be issued in the name of women head

of such family.]"

In view of amended rules, even if the said houses are existing and

the petitioners have been allotted area in excess of 300 square

yards, the excess area cannot be regularized as there is no

provision for charging 25% of the market rate for the excess land.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on

15.04.2023 an additional affidavit was filed for taking on record

the letter dated 22.03.2023 issued by the Chief Executive Officer,

Zila Parishad, Jodhpur while directing the Block Development

Officer to file the revision petitions against the remaining persons

in pursuance to the direction given by this Court vide order dated

21.03.2023 for the purpose of apprising the Court about the

status of similarly situated people in whose favour pattas have

been allotted.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

10. This Court finds that the petitioners have been issued the

Patta No.53/2003 dated 07.06.2003 (Annexure-4) in which at

point No.3, the reference of Rule 157 of Rules of 1996 has been

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (14 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

given thereby meaning that after taking into consideration the fact

that the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute since

long and had also built houses on the said land in dispute, the

respondents have allotted the said Patta in question in favour of

the petitioners. The respondents initiated proceedings against the

petitioners in the year 2012 when the revision petition was filed by

private respondent against the petitioners bearing No.03/2012

(Annexure-10) under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act,1994

i.e. after a delay of about 9 years. As per the provisions of Rule

157(1)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1996 even if the petitioners have

been allotted an area in excess to 300 square yards then the

respondents have authority to charge market rate for the excess

area allotted to them as recommended by the District Level

Committee. Thus, even if the petitioners have been allotted area

in excess, the respondents can invoke Rule 157(1)(b)(ii) and

charge 25% of the market rate duly recommended by the District

Level Committee and the petitioners are willing to deposit the

same as stated by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Rule

157 of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced hereunder:-

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

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (15 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

(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."

11. This Court also finds that in one of the order dated

03.03.2022 passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.175/2020 (Khushal

Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) upon which the respondents

have placed reliance also relied upon Rule 157 of the Rules of

1996 wherein Rule 157(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1996 has also been

mentioned. The relevant part of the order is reproduced

hereunder:-

"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.

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:

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (16 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

"(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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (17 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

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."

This Court finds that on 11.01.2023 the Deputy Commissioner and

Deputy Secretary Administration (First) made a communication to

the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur in pursuance to

the regularisation of old houses under Rule 157 of the Rules of

1996 in which it has been submitted that under the Stamps Rules,

2004 under Rule 58(b) upon recommendation of the District Level

Committee 25 percent of the market rate can be charged for the

excess area and the land holder can be allotted the said patta for

the land in use and the same is reproduced hereunder and taken

on record.

"jktLFkku ljdkj xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx ¼iapk;rh jkt foHkkx½ ØŒ,Q-4¼1½fn"kk&funsZ"k@fof/k@iajk@2023@04 fnukad % 11-1-23 eq[; dk;Zdkjh vfèkdkjh] ftyk ifj"kn~] leLr ¼jktLFkku½A fo"k;%& jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 157& iqjkus x`gksa ds fofu;fefrdj.k ds lacaèk esaA

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (18 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

mijksä fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 157&iqjkus x`gksa ds fofu;fefrdj.k esa 300 oxZxt ,oa mlls vfèkd {ks=Qy ds Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk tkjh djus ds lacaèk esa gSA jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 157&iqjkus x`gksa ds fofu;fefrdj.k esa 300 oxZxt lafufeZr {ks=Qy ls vfèkd Hkwfe tks vkoklh; ifjlj ds lkFk] mi;ksx esa vk jgh [kkyh vkcknh Hkwfe dk iV~Vk fu;e 157¼1½¼ ii½] mi;qä [k.M ¼i½ esa fofufnZ"V {ks=Qy ls vfèkd {ks=Qy ds fy, gSA ,sls vfèkd {ks=Qy ij jktLFkku LVkEi fu;e] 2004 ds fu;e 58 ds [k.M ¼[k½ ds vèkhu xfBr ftyk Lrjh; lfefr }kjk flQkfj'k dh xbZ ubZ cktkj njksa dk 25 çfr'kr jkf'k tek djds Hkw[k.Mèkkjh ds mi;ksx esa vk jgh dCtk 'kqnk ¼lEiw.kZ½ vkcknh Hkwfe dk iV~Vk tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA lgh@& mik;qä ,oa mi 'kklu lfpo ¼çFke½"

Thus, looking to the fact that on 11.01.2023 a communication has

been made in respect of charging 25 percent amount for the

excess land allotted, the submission of the respondents that after

amendment in the Rules of 1996 the said provision is deleted is

devoid of merit.

12. As an upshot of the above discussion, this Court is of the

view that the Gram Panchayat has issued the Pattas in favour of

the petitioners while invoking Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 and

the respondent after a delay of about 9 years filed revision and no

plausible reason has been assigned for the delay. It is also

important to note that about 157 Pattas were allotted by the Gram

Panchayat-respondent No.3 along with the petitioner in the same

location while invoking Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996, however the

State Government did not initiate any action or file revision

against other any other similarly situated persons. It was only

after this Court passed the order dated 21.03.2023 asking the

respondent State to to apprise the Court about the revision

[2023:RJ-JD:33690] (19 of 19) [CW-7732/2020]

petition if filed against the similarly situated people, the State

Government filed the revision petitions which are still pending

before the Collector, Jodhpur and thus, in such circumstances it

would be too harsh to dispossess the petitioners from the said

Patta as the petitioners are having the possession of the said patta

since very long especially when it is not a case where the

petitioners have committed any fraud or misrepresentation at the

time when the patta was allotted to them. The respondent No.3-

Gram Panchayat, Luni after having a due satisfaction while

invoking the Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 have allotted the

Pattas in favour of the petitioners. Apparently, the respondents

after a delay of nine years from the date of issuance of Pattas in

question have initiated action against the petitioners.

13. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition is allowed

and the impugned order dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure-16) passed

by learned Additional District Collector (I), Jodhpur in proceeding

No.44/2019 is quashed and set aside and the proceeding initiated

in Revision Petition No.44/2019 (Annexure-15) titled as Chain

Bharati V/s Unalal & Ors. passed by learned Additional District

Collector (I), Jodhpur is quashed and set aside.

14. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 147-amit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)