Pappu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 7048 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28448]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10570/2023

1. Bannaram S/o Shri Manaram, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Jat Resident Of Near Shiv Mandir, Bhamatsar, Bikaner, At Present Resident Of Behind Mangal Place, Rora Road, Nokha District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

2. Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Bannaram, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Jat Resident Of Near Shiv Mandir, Bhamatsar, Bikaner, At Present Resident Of Behind Mangal Place, Rora Road, Nokha District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

3. Saroj D/o Bannaram, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste Jat Resident Of Near Shiv Mandir, Bhamatsar, Bikaner, At Present Resident Of Behind Mangal Place, Rora Road, Nokha District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

4. Sanju D/o Bannaram, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Jat Resident Of Near Shiv Mandir, Bhamatsar, Bikaner, At Present Resident Of Behind Mangal Place, Rora Road, Nokha District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Municipal Board, Nokha, Through Its Executive Officer

2. Mangilal Suthar S/o Devaram, By Caste Suthar, R/o Gathilasar, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10636/2022

Rajendra Puri S/o Late Shri Dariyav Puri Goswami, Aged About 56 Years, Subhash Nagar, Sheoganj, District Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through The Director Cum Joint Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

2. Municipal Board, Sheoganj, District Sirohi, Through Its Executive Officer.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16424/2022

Saddam Hussain S/o Shri Bhanwaroo Khan, Aged About 31 Years, Near Old Police Station, Khakhad Ki Circle, Nawa, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (2 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director -Cum-Joint Secretary, Directorate, Department Of Local Self Government, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Municipal Board, Nawa, District Nagaur Through Its Executive Officer.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12522/2023

Pappu Ram S/o Shri Sawai Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Ambedkar Colony, Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

2. Municipal Council, Barmer, Through Its Commissioner.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11730/2023

1. Kan Singh S/o Shri Arjun Singh Ji, Aged About 76 Years, Caste - Rawna Rajput, R/o Mohalla Gangai Nahar, City Barmer, Rajasthan.

2. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Caste - Rawna Rajput, R/o Mohalla Gangai Nahar, City Barmer, Rajasthan.

3. Smt. Pushpa W/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 52 Years, Caste - Rawna Rajput, R/o Mohalla Gangai Nahar, City Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban Development And Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Department Of Local Body, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Municipal Council, Barmer, Through Its Municipal Commissioner.

4. The Municipal Commissioner, Barmer, Rajasthan.

5. Sang Singh S/o Shri Purakh Singh, Caste - Rawna Rajput, R/o Mohalla Gangai Nahar ,city Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma, Mr. D.D. Chitlangi Mr. D.S. Gaur, Mr. Vishal Sharma &

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (3 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

Mr.Falgun Buch For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar, Addl.G.C.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reportable

Reserved on 23/08/2023, 28/08/2023 & 06/09/2023 Pronounced on 12/09/2023

1. Though the arguments in the instant petitions were heard

separately and the judgment was reserved on different dates, but

since the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though

with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, they are

being decided by this common judgment.

1.1. For the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the

facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-

numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10570/2023, while treating

the same as a lead case.

1.2. The prayer clauses read as under:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:

1. The notice impugned dated 18.07.2023 (Annex.6) issued by the Municipal Board, Nokha, Bikaner may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. Any consequential order passed in pursuance to the notice dated 18.07.2023 (Annex.6) during filing of the instant writ petition may also be quashed.

3. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by

learned counsel for the petitioners, are that a land measuring

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (4 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

2400 square yards situated behind Mangal Palace (Cinema

Talkies), Nokha, Bikaner was sold by one Mehardeen to Rajkumar

(son of petitioner-Bannaram) through agreement dated

31.08.2018; whereafter Rajkumar expired and the land in

question came in possession of the petitioners, as legal heirs.

2.1. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for issuance of patta of the

land in question under the Prashashan Shahron Ke Sang Scheme,

whereupon the respondent issued a notice dated 11.10.2022 to

the petitioners calling upon to deposit the conversion fees, which

was accordingly deposited by the petitioners. Thereafter, a free

hold patta was issued by the respondent on 30.11.2022 to the

petitioners and the same was registered in the Office of Sub-

Register concerned on the same day.

2.2. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice dated

18.07.2023 to the previous owner i.e. Mehardeen and stated that

certain private persons raised objections regarding the land in

question and the petitioners were also called upon to produce the

original relevant documents of the land in question. The

petitioners submitted a reply to the said notice. The decision is

awaited by the authority thereafter.

3. In Writ petitions no. 11730/2023, 16424/2022 &

12522/2023, it is revealed that the respondent issued the notice

to the petitioners seeking production of the original patta and

thereafter the respondent passed the impugned order of

cancellation of the patta in question under Section 73-B of

Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act

of 2009').

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (5 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

respondent authority issued the patta to the petitioners in respect

of the land in question and the same was registered before the

competent authority, and thereafter, reviewing of the same by

notice/cancellation thereof is highly illegal and in violation of the

provisions of law.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 73 of

the Act of 2009, the power of re-examination or calling of record,

in respect of lease granted by the Municipality does not lie with

the Municipality, which issued the patta, rather the same lies with

the government. Therefore, the patta issued by the respondent

cannot be reviewed (notice/cancellation) by the same authority

respondent.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent not only

reviewed the matter regarding the patta in question but also

exceeded its jurisdiction and cancelled the patta in question in

some of the matters, which is not permissible in the eye of law

because only a Civil Court is having jurisdiction to cancel a

registered patta.

4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the patta in question

was issued by the respondent after considering all the aspects and

considering the material on record, and now the respondent

initiated the inquiry for cancellation of patta in question and

cancelled the patta in question, which was not justified in law.

4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the cancellation/notice

for the registered patta (lease deed) issued by the respondent

itself was done in exercise of powers under Section 73-B of the

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (6 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

Act of 2009, whereas the administrative authority has no

jurisdiction to do so.

4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that in an identical matter

being S.B.C.W.P. No. 9883/2023 (Sawai Ram Vs State of

Rajasthan & Anr.), this Hon'ble Court had passed an interim order

on 20.07.2023, which reads as under:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Vs. The District Collector, Hanumangarh & Ors. reported in 2016 (3) WLC (Raj.) 627 and urges that a registered conveyance deed cannot be challenged and questioned by taking recourse of the procedure provided under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. He thus urges that the order dated 30.06.2023 is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction.

The matter requires consideration.

Issue notice of writ petition as well as stay application to the respondents, returnable on 21.08.2023.

In the meantime, the respondents are restrained from proceeding against the petitioner in furtherance of the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 (Annex.4) Connect with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8940/2023."

4.6. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon

the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble

Court in the case of Ramchandra Vs The District Collector,

Hanumangarh & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.5648/2004, decided on 15.03.2016); and Kamla Devi Vs

State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11329

of 2018, decided on 22.09.2021).

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (7 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Parihar, learned Additional

Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,

while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the

petitioners, submitted that the State Government during the

aforementioned Scheme granted various relaxations to the

members of the general public for obtaining the pattas pertaining

to their respective land(s).

5.1. It was further submitted that thereafter, the State

Government by way of notification inserted a new Section 73-B of

the Act of 2009, wherein the complete mechanism was provided

for revocation and cancellation of the lease deed etc., if the same

had been obtained by misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of

false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law. For

the said purpose, sub-section (3) of Section 73-B of the Act of

2009 empowered the Executive Officer or the issuing Authority

itself, to revoke the allotment or cancel the lease deed.

5.2. It was also submitted that the power conferred by Section 73

(2) of the Act of 2009 is a revisional power and that power has

been given to the higher authorities to examine the correctness

and validity of the instruments, lease, sell and allotment made by

the Municipal authorities and the power under Section 73-B of the

Act of 2009 is provided to the Executive Officer or the issuing

authority; therefore, as per learned Additional Government

Counsel, the impugned orders/notices given by the respondent are

justified in law being in accordance with the provisions of the Act

of 2009.

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (8 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

5.3. It was further submitted that the petitioners obtained the

pattas in question in violation of the provisions of the Act of 2009,

and therefore, they were issued a show cause notice, followed by

the order of cancellation of the pattas in question, which is

justified in law.

5.4. In support of such submissions, learned Additional

Government Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a

Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Mithoo Shahani & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Civil

Appeal No.552/1963, decided on 10.03.1964).

Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as

hereunder:-

"It is manifest that a sanad can be lawfully issued only on the basis of a valid order of allotment. If an order of allotment which is the basis upon which a grant is made is set aside it would follow, and the conclusion is inescapable that the grant cannot survive, because in order that that grant should be valid it should have been effected by a competent officer under a valid order. If the validity of that order is effectively put an end to it would be impossible to maintain unless there were any express provision in the Act or in the rules that the grant still stands".

5.5. He further relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division

Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case Issack Khan Vs State of

Rajasthan (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 918/2017, decided on

23.10.2018); and judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this

Hon'ble Court in case of Ghewar Chand & Anr. Vs State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8887 of 2017,

decided on 11.08.2017).

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (9 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Issack

Khan (Supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-

"18. Lastly, coming to the effect of registration of the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat, suffice it to say that the registration of the document by itself does not confer any title over the property and thus, if the patta on the strength of which appellant was claiming right over the disputed land, is found to be illegal and void, the State Government exercising revisional power under Section 97 of the Act, was well within its jurisdiction in annulling the decision of the Gram Panchayat in pursuance whereof the appellant was claiming right over the disputed property."

Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Ghewar

Chand & Anr. (Supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-

"So as per the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is settled that if an order of allotment or a patta, which is the basis of the registered document found to be illegal, the registration of the said document will not come in the way. It is settled that if the validity of a patta or order of allotment issued by any local authority is questioned by way of revision, the registration of the said patta or document of allotment will not be treated as a bar in adjudicating upon the validity of the same.

It appears that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithoo Sahani's case (supra) has not been brought into the notice of the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1958/2011, Manohar Lal Vs. District Collector, Barmer & Ors.

This Court in Nagar Mal Vs. Addl. District Collector, Sikar & Ors. (supra) has rightly held that registration of a patta is only a consequential event and when the pattas are found to have been issued contrary to the obtaining rules, the mere registration thereof cannot be treated as a safe harbour. The cancellation of said patta by the competent authority will also thus entail would follow consequences in law rendering the registration thereof ineffective and inconsequential."

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (10 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

5.6. He also relied upon the following judgments:-

(a) Municipal Council, Pali Vs Deendayal & Ors. (D.B.Civil

Special Appeal No. 485/2013, decided 16.07.2015) by a

Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court;

(b) Smt. Rampyari Vs Addl. District Collector, Bhilwara & Ors.

(S.B.C.W.P. No.1389/2004, decided on 05.05.2006) by a

Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court; and

(c) Smt. Shanti Devi Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B.C.W.P. No.

8143 of 2012, decided on 25.11.2016) by a Coordinate Bench

of this Hon'ble Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused

the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the

Bar.

7. This Court observes that the petitioners purchased

aforementioned lands in question, and thereafter, applied for

issuance of the patta pertaining to the same. Thereafter, the

free hold pattas were issued by the respondent authority to the

petitioners and the same were registered before the concerned

authority. The respondent authority issued a notice to the

petitioners for production of the original relevant documents of

the lands in question.

8. In some of the above-numbered petitions, the respondent

authority cancelled the pattas of the petitioners therein under

Section 73-B of the Act of 2009.

8.1. For the sake of brevity, the said Section 73-B is

reproduced as hereunder:-

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (11 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

"73-B. Revocation of allotment and cancellation of lease deed.-(1) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, if, at any time, before or after the lease deed, executed and registered, in respect of land disposed of under this Chapter either on lease hold basis or on free hold basis, the Municipality has reasons to believe that allotment of land has been obtained, and lease deed has been executed, by way of misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, it shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing to show cause why an order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land should not be made.

(2) The notice shall -

(a) specify the grounds on which an order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land is proposed to be made; and

(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the land, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof. (3) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under sub-section (1) and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Municipality is satisfied that the lease is obtained by misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, the Municipality may, make an order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land and also make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the land shall be vacated by all persons who are or may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the land.

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (12 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

(4) An appeal shall lie from an order of the Municipality made under sub-section (3) to the State Government or the officer authorized by it.

(5) An appeal under sub-section (4) shall be preferred within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant:

Provided that the State Government or the officer authorized by it may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, if it or he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

(6) Every appeal under sub-section (4) shall be disposed of by the State Government or the officer authorized by it as expeditiously as possible.

(7) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any order, notice, proceedings or action taken under this section."

9. This Court further observes that the Legislature inserted

the new Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 by way of an

Amendment in the year 2021. This Court further observes that

the respondent issued the notice for production of the relevant

documents, and thereafter cancelled the pattas on the ground

that the allotment and pattas of the lands in question were

obtained and lease deed was executed by way of:-

(a) Misrepresentation of facts or;

(b) On the basis of false documents or;

(c) With collusion or;

(d) In contravention of law.

10. This Court also observes that the Government of

Rajasthan further inserted the similar provision in the

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, Jaipur Development

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (13 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

Authority Act, 1982, Jodhpur Development Authority Act, 2009

and Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013.

11. This Court further observes that the intention of the

Legislature and the Government of the Rajasthan clearly show

that the Municipality concerned has power to issue show cause

notice and cancel the patta and lease deed if the same are

found in violation of the aforementioned prescriptions of

Section 73-B of the Act of 2009, after duly following the

procedure as laid down therein.

12. This Court further observes that the Coordinate Bench of

this Hon'ble Court has rightly held in the Ghewar Chand &

Anr. (Supra), that "So as per the law laid down by the

Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is

settled that if an order of allotment or a patta, which is the

basis of the registered document found to be illegal, the

registration of the said document will not come in the way."

13. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to

reproduce the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by

a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sohan

Kanwar Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. (D.B. Civil

Special Appeal No. 616 of 2000, decided on 31.08.2001),

as hereunder:

"10. That being the position, the order of allotment being bad in the eyes of law being obtained by misrepresentation can be said to be ineffective. Any subsequent action on the basis of an order which is obtained on the basis of misrepresentation also cannot be maintained. No amount of time lapsed can be

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (14 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

considered to be sufficient to confer a right on a person who had perpetrated fraud".

14. This Court further observes that in the above-numbered Writ

petition No. 10636/2022, the respondent issued a notice dated

20.07.2022 for production of the original documents and furnish

the requisite clarification because the petitioner therein got the

patta registered by way of misrepresentation of facts and in

contravention of law.

Relevant portion of the said notice is reproduced as

hereunder:-

"vki }kjk vkius HkkbZ Jh txnh'kiqjh ls nqjfHklaf/k djrs gq, nksuksa ds }kjk feF;k O;iZns'ku djrs gq, feF;k 'kiFk i= nsdj fof/k dk mYya?ku djrs gq, [kqyh iM+h Hkwfe dks [kkapk Hkwfe ds :i esa izkIr dh xbZ gSA ftlls ikfydk }kjk mDr nqjfHklaf/k] feF;k O;ins'ku djrs gq, feF;k 'kiFk i= nsdj fof/k dk mYya?ku djrs gq, izkIr dh xbZ [kkapk Hkwfe ds vkoaVu ds izfrlgj.k vkSj iVVk foys[k dks j)dj.k dk vkns'k fn;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA"

15. This Court also observes that in the above-numbered Writ

Petition No. 11730/2023, the respondent passed the order dated

19.06.2023 under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 and stated that

the petitioner got the patta registered by way of

misrepresentation of facts and on the basis of false documents;

therefore, the patta was declared as void.

Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as

hereunder:-

"bl lEca/k esa Jh lkaxflag o mxeflag iq=ku Lo- iqj[kflag fuoklh xaxkbZ uxj ckM+esj }kjk fnukad 25-05-2023 dh f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij ik;k x;k fd vki }kjk dqVjfpr ,oa feF;k nLrkost izLrqr dj tkjh djok;k tkuk izFke n`"V;k ik;k x;k gS rFkk ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa okn fopkjk/khu

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (15 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

gksus dh rF; Nqik;k x;k gS o vU; mDr fookfnr Hkw[k.Mkksa ds lEca/k esa iVVk foys[k miiaft;d dk;kZy; ckM+esj esa Jherh iq"iknsoh iRuh Jh jkeflag iVVk iaft;u fnukad 20-09-2022 rFkk Jh jktsUnzflag o Jh dkuflag ds iVVs fnukad 29-09-2022 dks iaft;u gks pqds gSA vFkkZr Jh dkuflag o Jh jktsUnzflag ,oa Jherh iq"iknsoh ds }kjk dqVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj dj ,oa feF;k nLrkost izLrqr dj iVVk foys[k izkIr fd;k x;k gSA "

16. This Court observes that in the above-numbered Writ petition

No. 16424/2022, the respondent passed the order dated

17.10.2022 under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 and stated that

the petitioner got the patta registered by way of

misrepresentation of facts and against the provisions of law;

therefore, the patta was declared as void.

Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as

hereunder:-

"Jh txnh'k izlkn iq= Jh uksykjke fuoklh ukaok rglhy ukok }kjk fnukad 29-08-2022 dks mDr cuk;s x;s iVVs ds edku ds LokfeRo lEcU/kh izLrqr nLrkostksa ,oa iVVk /kkjd ds tokc uksfVl ds izLrqr nLrkostksa ds voyksdu fd;s tkus ls iVVk/kkjd Jh lnnke gqlSu [kka iq= Jh Hko: [ka fuoklh ukoka ds fdjk;snkj gksus ,oa dwVjfpr nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij iVVk fof/k ds mYya?ku esa tkjh djokus ds dkj.k iVVk fujLr ;ksX; gSA mijksDrkuqlkj vkns'k esa fy;s vk/kkj ,oa foopuksa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc mi;qDr ugha gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ Jh lnnke gqlSu [kka iq= Jh Hkao: [kka fuoklh iqjkuh jsYos LVs'ku [k[kM+dh pkSgjk;k ukoka 'kgj ftyk ukxkSj dks tkjh iVVk dzekad 452&2021&22 fnukad 02-03- 2022dks funs'kky; Lok;r 'kklu foHkkx jktLFku t;iqj dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 09-05-2022dh vuqikyuk esa jktLFkku uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e 2009 dh /kkjk 73 ch ds rgr ,rn}kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr vkns'k dh izfr mi iaft;d ukoka dks fHtokrs gq;s izkFkhZ ds jftLVMZ iVVk foys[k ij fujLrh dk uksV vadu djus dk vkys[k fd;k tkosA"

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (16 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

17. This Court observes that in the above-numbered Writ petition

No. 12522/2023, the respondent passed the order dated

23.06.2023 and stated that the petitioner got the patta registered

by way of misrepresentation of facts and by concealing material

facts; therefore, the patta was declared as void.

Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as

hereunder:-

"Jh iIiwjke iq= Jh lokbZjke dks tkjh iVVk foys[k dzekad 15063 fnukad 25-05-2023 dks jftLVMZ gks pqdk gS ftldh 'krZ la[;k 12 bl izdkj gS iVVk foys[k ds fu"iknu ds i'pkr ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd iVVsnkj ]}kjk diViw.kZ nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij vFkok rF; Nqikdj iVVk foys[k izkIr fd;k gS rks mDr Hkq[k.M dk iVVk uxj ifj"kn ckM+esj }kjk fujLr fd;k tk ldsxkA bl izdkj Jh iIIiwjke iq= Jh lokbZjke }kjk feF;k ,oa xyr nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij izkIr fd;k x;k gSA vr% iVVk foys[k dh 'krZ la[;k 12 dk mYya?ku gksus ds dkj.k dks jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk la[;k i-8¼x½¼vfHk&12½ fu;e@Lok-'kk-fo- @12@14723 fnukad 17-12-2021 esa iznRr fjO;w vf/kdkjksa o 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq;s vkt fnukad 23-06-2023 dks izdj.k esa jlhn la[;k 55359 fnukad 13-04-2023 ds tfj;s tek jkf'k 62]795@& :i;s tCr djrs gq, tkjh d`f"k Hkwfe O;olkf;d izh gksYM iVVk foys[k dzekad 15063 fnukad 25- 05-2023 dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA"

18. This Court further observes that in the above-numbered Writ

petition No. 10570/2023, the respondent issued the notice dated

18.07.2023 to the petitioner and stated that the objection was

received against regarding the patta of land, and therefore, the

petitioner was directed to produce the original documents and

furnish the necessary clarification.

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (17 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

Relevant portion of the said notice is reproduced as

hereunder:-

"mDr Hkwfe vki }kjk tfj;s bZdjkjukek fnukad 31-08-2018 }kjk Jh jktdqekj iq= Jh cukjke tkfr tkV fuoklh HkkeVlj dks fodz; dh x;h gSA ftl i=koyh esa Jh ekaxhyky iq= nsokjke tkfr lqFkkj fuoklh xBhyklj }kjk vkifRr izLrqr dh x;h gSA ftlds fuLrkj.k gsrq ikfydk iz'kklu }kjk lquokbZ fnukad 17-07-2023 dks nksigj 12-30 cts rkjh[k eqdnZj dh x;h FkhA fdUrq vki okafNr lk{;ks@lcwrksa lfgr mifLFkr ugha gq, gSA izdj.k esa vkifRr ds fuLrkj.k gsrq iqu% lquokbZ fnukad 25-07-2023 dks nksigj 12-30 cts rkjh[k eqdnZj dh tkrh gSA "

19. This Court also observes that it is clear that the Legislature's

intention behind insertion of the Section 73-B of the Act of 2009

was that it is necessary to prevent the illegal allotment of the land

and execution of lease deed, and thus, powers were given to the

concerned Municipal Body to issue show cause notice to the

person(s) concerned, and thereafter, if the Municipal Body is

satisfied that the allotment of the land and issuance of patta and

registration thereof was done, by misrepresentation of facts or on

the basis of false documents or with collusion or in contravention

of law, it can pass an order for revocation of allotment and

cancellation of the lease deed of the land.

19.1. This Court holds that the review of the decision regarding

revocation/cancellation of the patta has to be permitted to be

gone into by the same authority who has registered such patta, if

the process, for the said purpose, as undertaken by him, was

pointed out to be suffering from misrepresentation of facts or on

the basis of false documents or with collusion or in contravention

of law, on the part of the person(s), who obtained such patta.

[2023:RJ-JD:28448] (18 of 18) [CW-11730/2023]

20. This Court further observes that in the present case, the

impugned actions of the respondent authority regarding issuance

of the show cause notice and cancellation of pattas as well as

lease deeds of the petitioners are justified for the foregoing

reasons.

21. This Court thus holds that any lease deed/patta registered

shall be amenable to interference by the registering authority

itself on count of misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of

false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, as

laid down in Section 73-B of the Act of 2009.

22. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners also do not

render any assistance to their case, due to subsequent

amendment in law and the views taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Mithoo Shahani & Ors. (supra) and the Division

Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sohan Kanwar

(supra).

23. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of the

aforementioned precedent laws as well as looking into the factual

matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so

as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions.

24. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All

pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)