Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Niranjan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:10645]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3394/2024
Niranjan S/o Sh. Pema Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Kukarwali,
District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.
3. The District Collector (Land Records), Didwana-
Kuchaman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for
Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
04/03/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide
impugned order dated 22.02.2024, the petitioner, who is working
as a Patwari, has been sought to be transferred from Chitawa,
Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Didwana-Kuchaman to District
Nagaur, without specifying the exact place of posting/Patwar
Mandal. Learned counsel submits that the same is even otherwise,
in contravention to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land
Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of
1957').
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
[2024:RJ-JD:10645] (2 of 3) [CW-3394/2024]
Rajpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.544/2021 (decided on 18.03.2021).
2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the Collector is very well empowered to pass appropriate
order regarding place of posting after the transfer order having
been passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, even if the order
impugned does not mention the specific place of posting, it can be
taken care of by the Collector.
3. Heard the counsels. Perused the order impugned.
4. A perusal of the order impugned dated 22.02.2024 makes it
clear that no specific place of posting has been mentioned in the
same. While dealing with a similar situation, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Rajpal Singh's case (supra), held that,
even if the State or competent authority wishes to transfer a
patwari from one place to another, he has to satisfy himself about
the interest of efficiency of work or to fill the vacant post. The
Court in the said matter, observed that a transfer made without
indicating Patwar Circle or even Tehsil is enough to show lack of
application of mind and hence, it cannot be inferred that the
competent authority was aware of the present vacant position in
the said district and that too, the requirement of petitioner's
efficiency in such Patwar Circle, for which his transfer was
warranted.
The Court, in the said circumstances concluded as under :
"28. If the competent authority has not decided or
was not aware, where the concerned patwari is to
be transferred, it cannot be presumed that the
competent authority has applied its mind towards
[2024:RJ-JD:10645] (3 of 3) [CW-3394/2024]
the vacant position, falling vacant on account of
exigencies mentioned in clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the
Rules of 1957. Nor can he be presumed to have
ascertained that interest of efficiency of work
required that petitioner should be transferred to a
far flung place at Hanumangarh."
5. In view of the above ratio which squarely covers the present
matter, the order impugned dated 22.02.2024 qua the present
petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is
hereby set aside. The writ petition is hence, allowed.
6. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
7. It is however made clear that the present order would not be
termed to preclude the State Authorities from passing fresh
orders, in terms of law.
(REKHA BORANA),J
378-Vij/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
