Sandeep Son Of Shri Ramvilash vs Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4791 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:22605]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1211/2019

Mangelal Son Of Shri Manohar Lal, Aged About 74 Years,
Resident      Of     Mundawar,        Tehsil     Mundawar,         District   Alwar,
Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Mundawar District Alwar,
         Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma.
2.       Gram Panchayat Mundawar, Through Sarpanch Gram
         Panchayat, Mundawar District Alwar, Smt. Usha Saini At
         Present Resident Of Mundawar, District Alwar Raj.
                                                                   ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1210/2019 Sandeep Son Of Shri Ramvilash, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Mundawar Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Mundawar District Alwar, Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma.

2. Gram Panchayat Mundawar, Through Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Mundawar District Alwar, Smt. Usha Saini At Present Resident Of Mundawar, District Alwar Raj.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     None present
For Respondent(s)           :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

13/09/2023

1. A common order dated 09.07.2018, passed by the Court of

Additional District Collector-II, Alwar, (Rajasthan) in Revision

[2023:RJ-JP:22605] (2 of 6) [CW-1211/2019]

Petition No.13/06/2016 & 13/09/2016 has been challenged in the

present writ petitions.

2. By the impugned order dated 09.07.2018, the Additional

District Collector-II, Alwar, Rajasthan dismissed the application

filed by the applicants-petitioners for dismissal of the revision

petition being not maintainable on the ground that the revision

petitioners ware having alternative remedy of appeal under

Section 61 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (In short 'the

Act of 1994').

3. When these matters came up before this Court for hearing

on 02.09.2023, counsel for the petitioners sought time to prepare

the matter and therefore, the matter was adjourned for

06.09.2023 and again on his request, matter was adjourned for

11.09.2023. On 11.09.2023, the case was called for hearing but

no one put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners and the

matters ware adjourned for 12.09.2023. Again on 12.09.2023, no

one appeared for the petitioners even in the second round and

today also there is no one to represent the petitioners.

4. The basic issue raised in the present writ petitions is that

when Section 61 of the Act of 1994 provides for an appeal against

the order of the Gram Panchayat to be preferred before the

Appellate Authority i.e. Panchayat Samiti, whether revision

petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 could be entertained

by the Revisional Authority? The issue raised in these writ

petitions has already been settled by this Court in case of Nagar

Mal Vs. Additional District Collector and Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition Nos.11006-11008 of 2012, decided on 30.07.2012. in

[2023:RJ-JP:22605] (3 of 6) [CW-1211/2019]

case of Nagar Mal (supra), the Rajasthan High Court has

observed as under:-

"Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and having perused the writ petition as also the impugned order dated 20.03.2012, passed by the Additional Collector, Sikar, I am of the view that there is no force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that revision petitions filed before the Addl. Collector-I, Jaipur were not maintainable. Section 97 of the Act of 1994 provides that "the State Government may, either of its own motion or on an application from any person interested, call for and examine the record of a Panchayati Raj Institution or of a Standing Committee or sub-committee thereof in respect of any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein or as to the regularity of such proceedings and, if in any case, it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly." The only limitation on the powers of the State Government under Section 97 provided is that no such order can be passed by the State Government without hearing the opposite party or without giving it a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Even though Section 61 of the Act of 1994 provides for an appeal to the Panchayat Samiti at the instance of an aggrieved person, in fact the power under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 is an overarching power vested in the State Government. Under the Act of 1994, the State Government supervises the functioning of the Panchayati Raj Institutions and in my considered view where it is brought to the notice of the State Government or an officer authorised by it for exercising the power under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 that gross illegalities have been committed the statutory provisions of the Act of 1994 and Rules of 1996 violated by the Gram Panchayat by acted beyond its jurisdiction, the applicant cannot be non-suited only on

[2023:RJ-JP:22605] (4 of 6) [CW-1211/2019]

the ground of availability of an alternate remedy. The Additional Collector, Sikar is quite obviously a person authorized by the State Government for the exercise of power under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 and there are numerous revision petitions filed before the Additional Collector against the order of Gram Panchayat which on being determined by him come before this Court from time to time. Consequently, I find no force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners that the

was not maintainable in view of there being a provision of appeal. In fact such an argument was not taken by the petitioners before the revising authority and the petitioners acquiesced to its jurisdiction taking a chance on the merits of the case. A new plea not taken before the revising authority cannot be allowed in this petition. In my considered view, even otherwise the impugned order dated 20.03.2012 passed by the Additional Collector being a well considered and a justifiable order in the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ court in the exercise its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would loath to set it aside and perpetuate gross illegalities as appear from the allotment of Pattas made by the Gram Panchayat Sargoth to the petitioners. The illegalities will be adverted to when the merits of the case would be discussed hereinafter."

5. Further the High Court in case of "Khusal Singh Vs. State

of Rajasthan" in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.57/2020 decided on

14.01.2020 has also held that the revision petition under Section

97 of the Act of 1994 is maintainable even though the remedy

available under Section 61 of the Act 1994 has not been availed.

6. In case of Khusal Singh (supra) the Rajasthan High Court

has observed as under:-

"Reliance was placed on Manohar Lal vs. District Collector, Barmer : 2015 (2) RRT 967 and Panna Lal & Anr. vs. Smt. Sushila Devi & Ors : 2018-19 (Supp.) RRT 125.

[2023:RJ-JP:22605] (5 of 6) [CW-1211/2019]

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

A bare perusal of the record indicates that the Patta of land ad measuring 537.41 Sq.Yds. has been issued on which only a room ad measuring 10'x8' and two GLRs constructed by PHED are existing. The Addl. Collector has recorded a finding of fact that in the file pertaining to allotment, except for the map nowhere the measurements of the total area of land in question has been indicated and the same was missing from the record, which clearly indicates that the allotment in question, which was apparently made beyond the limit prescribed under the Rules deliberately total area was not disclosed. The challenge laid pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Addl. Collector apparently has no substance as it is not disputed that the power of revision under Section 97 of the Act has been delegated to Collector by Notification dated 13/12/2004 and in terms of Section 2(vi) of the Act Collector of a District includes Addl. Collector and, therefore, the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the power once delegated to the Collector could not be further delegated has no substance inasmuch as there is no sub delegation on account of fiction created by the definition of Collector, whereby, term Collector includes Addl. Collector as well.

In view thereof, rejection of petitioner's objection pertaining to jurisdiction of Addl. Collector cannot be faulted.

Insofar as the submissions made pertaining to setting aside of registered Patta is concerned, the judgment in the case of Manohar Lal (supra) has been considered by a subsequent Division Bench in Jhumar Ram vs. Addl. District Collector (Second), Jodhpur : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 656/2017 decided on15/12/2017. The Division Bench relying on the judgment in Kamla Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No.136/2017 decided on 27/3/2017 came to the conclusion that the Patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in contravention of

[2023:RJ-JP:22605] (6 of 6) [CW-1211/2019]

Rules can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 97 of the Act. As such, the plea raised in this regard also has no substance.

So far as the plea raised for the first time that in view of provisions of Section 61 of the Act and 166 of the Rules, the revision petition was not maintainable based on the judgment in the case of Panna Lal (supra) is concerned, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the remedy of appeal under Section 61 of the Act is available to a 'person aggrieved' by issuance of Patta, while revision petition under Section 97 of the Act can be filed by a 'person interested' and as 2 GLRs of the respondent No.3 is installed on the land in question, which is being used for supplying drinking water, the said respondent No.3 is clearly 'interested' in the land and cannot be said to be 'aggrieved' of the allotment. Therefore, it cannot be said that appeal could have been filed against the allotment."

7. In view of the law settled in above referred judgments, this

Court also holds that there is no fault in the impugned orders in

rejecting the applications filed by the applicants-petitioners for

dismissal of the revision petition being not maintainable.

8. Hence, the present writ petitions are dismissed.

9. Since the main petitions are dismissed, the stay applications

and all other pending applications also stand dismissed.

10. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

ARTI SHARMA /263-264

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)