Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Tangla vs Ramlal Chhaba
2023 Latest Caselaw 7108 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (1 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3055/2023

1. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Tangla, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

2. Suresh Chhaba S/o Prema Ram Chhaba, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Chhavta Khurd, Tangla, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Ramlal Chhaba S/o Bhanwarlal Chhaba, Resident Of Chhavta Khurd, Tangla, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

2. Kamla W/o Bhanwarlal Chhaba, Resident Of Chhavta Khurd, Tangla, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3037/2023

1. Kamla W/o Late Bhanwar Lal Chhaba, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Chhavta Khurd, Gram Panchayat Tangla, Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur.

2. Ram Lal Chhaba S/o Late Bhanwar Lal Chhaba, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Chhavta Khurd, Gram Panchayat Tangla, Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. District Collector, Nagaur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur.

4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Jayal, District Nagaur.

5. Gram Panchayat Tangla, Panchayat Samiti Jayal, District Nagaur Through Its Village Development Officer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.

Mr. R.S. Choudhary with Mr. S.S. Gour.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (2 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

Judgment

Reserved on 05/09/2023 Pronounced 13/09/2023

1. These writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3055/2023:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or directions:-

(i) to quash and set aside the order dated 03.01.2023 (Annex.-8) passed by CJ&JM, Jayal passed in application Order 39 Rule 1 & 2.

(ii) to quash and set aside order dated 16.01.2023 (Annex.-

9) passed by ADJ No.1, Nagaur in Appeal No.01/23.

(iii) Petitioners may kindly be permitted to construct the community hall as they are rightful and legal owner of land belonging to the Patta No.25/50 issued by Bugarada Gram Panchayat.

(iv) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice; and

(v) cost of litigation may kindly be ordered to be awarded in favour of petitioners."

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3037/2023:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i) The impugned administrative sanction dated 23.03.2022 (Ann.5), technical sanction dated 28.03.2022 (Ann.6) and financial sanction dated 12.04.2022 (Ann.7) may kindly be declared arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondent Gram Panchayat may kindly be restrained from raising construction over the land of the petitioners in pursuance of the administrative sanction dated 23.03.2022 (Ann.5), technical sanction dated 28.03.2022 (Ann.6) and financial sanction dated 12.04.2022 (Ann.7).

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (3 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. In Writ petition No. 3055/2023, the respondents

instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of

the patta; alongwith therewith an application under Order 39 Rule

1 & 2 CPC against the petitioners was also filed, before the

learned Civil Judge, Jayal, District Nagaur, stating therein that

Patta No.10 Misal No.9/62 dated 09.01.1962 was issued to Late

Tulcha Ram (great Grandfather of the respondent no.1).

2.1. It was further stated in the said suit that another patta

no.25/50, as claimed to have been issued in favour of one

Mahinudeen S/o Abdul Gani Lohar on 01.01.1969 by the Gram

Panchayat, Bugarada Block, Jayal, District Nagaur, pertains to the

same land in relation to which the aforementioned Patta No.10

was issued; it was thus stated in the suit that in the given factual

matrix, the subsequent Patta No.25/50 so claimed to have been

issued is a forged and fabricated document. It was also stated in

the suit, that despite the said patta being a forged and fabricated

document, Mahinudeen gifted the land of patta no. 25/50 to the

Gram Panchayat for construction of a community hall.

2.2. It was also stated in the suit that the said patta, in fact, was

not issued by the said Gram Panchayat, as the same was bearing

forged signature of the Sarpanch; the same was done by the

petitioners by creating false and fabricated documents; further, no

official record was available in relation patta no.25/50 of the land

in question. Thus, as per the pleadings of the suit, as a

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (4 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

consequence of the patta in question being forged, the gift of the

land made by Mahinudeen for construction of the community hall

was also illegal.

2.3. The learned Court below vide the impugned order dated

03.01.2023 allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC

and passed the status quo order as it existed on that date

regarding construction on the land in question. Being aggrieved

thereby, the petitioners have preferred an appeal under Order 43

Rule 1 CPC before the learned Additional District Judge No.1,

Nagaur, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated

16.01.2023. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred claiming

the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Mr.Mahaveer Bhanwariya appearing on behalf of the petitioners

submitted that as per the description of the land in patta no.10 of

the respondents, northern side, there exists Land of Shiv Temple,

on southern side- Ramdevra, on eastern side - a public way and

on the western side - Field of one Magna Ram and Moola Ram.

3.1. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that patta no.

25/50 Misal No. 61/1967/86 was issued in favour of Mahinudeen;

as per the description therein, on northern side, there existed a

chowk and a public way, on southern side - Way to Temple, on

eastern side - public way, and on western side - House of one

Ramchandra/Prabhudas. As per learned Senior Counsel, both the

aforesaid lands are situated separately, and therefore, the

respondents pleaded incorrect facts in the suit in question, and

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (5 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

thus, the impugned orders passed by the learned Court below

were not justified in law.

3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the description

of the land of patta no.10 does not match with the land (of patta

No.25/50) where the community hall was to be constructed.

Therefore, as per learned Senior Counsel, the learned Courts

below have misinterpreted the reply of the petitioners in the suit

in question, and thus, committed an error in passing the

impugned orders.

3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Gram

Panchayat Tangla wrote an application to the concerned

authorities for providing the certified copies of the documents

pertaining to both the aforementioned land, and the documents

clearly show different description and measurement of the said

lands, and therefore, the learned Courts below have committed an

error in passing the impugned orders.

3.4. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the legal heirs of

Late Mahinudeen have donated the said land to the petitioner-

Gram Panchayat for construction of a community hall by an

agreement dated 08.03.2022, and therefore, the petitioners are

lawful owners of the land of patta no 25/50.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the private-respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions

made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the gift deed, as

claimed by the petitioners, was not a registered deed, and

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (6 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

therefore, on the basis of the said gift deed, the petitioners cannot

have any ownership rights over the land in question.

4.1. It was further submitted that the respondents filed an

application before the Village Development Officer (VDO) for

procuring the certified copy of the patta issued in favour of

Mainudeen (patta no.25/50) and the VDO has given an

information that no record is available with the gram panchayat

regarding the same patta. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the

petitioners have no ownership rights over the land in question.

4.2. It was also submitted that the petitioners are not the lawful

owners of the land in question because at the time of issuance of

the letter of ownership and site map, the petitioner were not

having any lease deed and gift deed. It was further submitted that

patta was issued in the name of great grandfather of the

respondents.

4.3. It was further submitted that the respondent no.1 filed an

application before the VDO, Bugarda and Gram Panchayat, Tangla

seeking certified copy of the patta and record of the land

pertaining to Mahinudeen, but the same was denied. As per

learned counsel, the Gram Panchayat, Tangla as well as the VDO

have refused to provide copies of the patta and the proceedings

on the ground that the respondent no.1 is a third party.

5. In Writ petition No. 3037/2023, the petitioners are patta

holders of patta no.10 Misal No.9/62 dated 09.01.1962

(Annexure-1) issued by the Gram Panchayat, Gugarda. The

sanction for construction of community hall was granted and the

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (7 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

respondent-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Tangla issued the

ownership certificate and photographs of the proposed site.

Thereafter, the respondent no.3-Chief Executive Officer granted

administrative sanction on 23.03.2022 and the Assistant Engineer

and Junior Technical Assistant have also granted technical sanction

for construction of public community hall on 28.03.2022.

Subseqsuently, the respondent no.3-Chief Executive Officer

granted financial sanction on 12.04.2022 for construction of the

community hall in question.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

Assistant Engineer and the Junior Technical Assistant have not

even visited the site and did not carry out any inspection, and

therefore, the impugned sanction orders are highly illegal and not

sustainable in the eye of law.

6.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the community hall in

question was sanctioned to be constructed on the land of the

petitioners without any valid ownership. It was also submitted that

in the aforementioned suit, the learned Court below allowed the

temporary injunction in the favour of the petitioners-Kamla and

Ram Lal. Therefore, as per learned counsel the impugned sanction

orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.

7. On the other hand, Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya; Mr. Sunil Beniwal Additional

Advocate General (AAG) appearing on behalf of the respondents,

while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the

petitioners, submitted that the sanction for construction of the

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (8 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

community hall was granted out of the MLA Fund and the entire

process in question was undertaken in accordance with law.

7.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that prior to passing of

the impugned sanction orders, two officers i.e. BDO & ABDO have

made due inspection of the site in question, examined the sites

and documents relating to the land of patta no 25/50, alongwith

due measurement verification. It was also submitted that the land

of patta no. 10 belonged to the petitioner; description of the land

mentioned therein, did not match with the description of the land,

on which the community hall in question is to be constructed.

7.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the construction

of the community hall would serve the public purpose, and the

same was validly sanctioned to be constructed on the land of patta

no.25/50; the construction work is in progress, raw material has

already been purchased and basic foundation has also been laid

down. Thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the petitioners

instituted the aforementioned suit and sought injunction order in

their favour, on the basis of false averments.

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

record of the case.

9. In Writ Petition No. 3055/2023, this Court observes that

the respondents instituted the aforementioned suit along with

application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the learned

Court below against the petitioners; the said application was

allowed vide the impugned order dated 03.01.2023. The petitioner

preferred an appeal before learned learned Appellate Court, but

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (9 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

the same was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated

16.01.2023.

9.1. This Court further observes that the land of patta no. 25/50,

Misal No. 61/1967/86 dated 21.06.1967 was issued by the Gram

Panchayat, Bugarada in favour of Mahinuddeen S/o Abdul Gani;

after his demise, his the legal heirs donated/gifted the said land to

the Gram Panchayat, Tagla through an agreement dated

08.03.2022, for construction of the community hall.

9.2. This Court also observes that the description and

measurements of both lands in patta no. 10 and patta no. 25/50,

respectively, are clearly different and separate from each other.

This Court further observes that the land of patta no. 25/50 was

donated/gifted through the gift deed to the petitioner-Gram

Panchayat for construction of the community hall.

9.3. This Court also observes that both the lands carrying

different descriptions, are not even adjacent to each other. The

suit was instituted in relation to the land of patta no.10, and that,

the land of patta no. 25/50 is different, and therefore, the

temporary injunction order cannot operate qua the land of patta

no.25/50.

9.4. This Court further observes that as per the material available

on record and also the photographs so furnished, it is clear that

the aforementioned lands with different patta numbers and

descriptions are two different and distinct properties.

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (10 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

10. In Writ Petition no.3037/2023, this Court observes that

the sanction was granted for construction of the community hall in

question over the land of Patta No. 25/50 Misal No. 61/1967/86

and the Gram Panchayat, Tangla is a lawful owner of the said land,

as per the gift deed executed by the legal heirs of Mahinudeen.

10.1. This Court further observes that the financial sanction for

construction of the community hall in question was granted out of

the MLA Fund, permission for such construction was granted after

site inspection being conducted by the concerned officers; the

Assistant Engineer and Junior Technical Assistant have also

granted the technical sanction for construction of the community

hall.

10.2 This Court also observes that the record clearly indicates that

the lands of patta no.10 and patta no 25/50 are different and

separate lands, and the community hall was sanctioned to be

constructed over the land of patta no.25/50.

11. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the

factual matrix of the present case, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

3055/2023 is allowed, and accordingly, the impugned order

dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jayal, Nagaur

in Civil Suit No. 30/2022 and the impugned order dated

16.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1,

Nagaur in Civil Appeal No.01/2023 are quashed and set aside.

11.1. However, for the foregoing observations and the factual

matrix of the case, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3037/2023 is

dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JD:28449] (11 of 11) [CW-3055/2023]

12. All pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)