Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 October, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:43140-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.463/2024
1. Madan Lal son of Chintaman Das Maloo, aged about 62
years, resident of Village Chohatan, Tehsil and District
Barmer (Raj.).
2. Joga Ram son of Vana Ram Meghwal, aged about 67
years, resident of Village Chohatan, Tehsil and District
Barmer (Raj.).
3. Sawal Ram son of Naga Ram Darji, aged about 52 years,
resident of Village Chohatan, Tehsil and District Barmer
(Raj.).
4. Dalla Ram son of Amba Ram Rebari, aged about 57 years,
resident of Village Chohatan, Tehsil and District Barmer
(Raj.).
5. Prag Singh son of Narayan Singh Rajput, aged about 42
years, resident of Village Chohatan, Tehsil and District
Barmer (Raj.).
6. Goma Ram son of Bhakar Ram, aged about 45 years,
resident of Village Chohatan, Tehsil and District Barmer
(Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. District Collector, Barmer (Raj.).
3. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chohatan, District Barmer
(Raj.).
4. Bhikhi Devi wife of Jag Ram Jat, Village Chohatan, Tehsil
and District Barmer (Raj.).
5. Hari Singh son of Bhoor Singh Rajput, resident of Village
Chohatan, Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashank R. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : ---------
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
21/10/2024
1. The present special appeal has been preferred against the
judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.9967/2016 whereby the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the
[2024:RJ-JD:43140-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-463/2024]
Collector, Barmer dismissing the revision petitions as preferred by
the appellants, was affirmed.
2. The facts are that certain pattas were issued by the Gram
Panchayat Chohatan to people belonging to category of 'Weaker
Section' being landless persons. The said issuance of pattas was
challenged by the appellants vide revision petitions before the
Collector wherein they prayed for cancellation of the said pattas.
Vide order dated 08.02.2016, the Collector dismissed the revision
petitions finding the pattas to be issued in terms of law.
3. The appellants challenged the order dated 08.02.2016 vide
several writ petitions being led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.8067/2016 (Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
Vide the order impugned, all the writ petitions came to be
dismissed. Aggrieved of the order passed qua one of the said writ
petitions (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9967/2016), the present
special appeal has been preferred.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
other special appeals preferred by the appellants therein, against
the same impugned judgment dated 03.11.2023 have already
been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in bunch of
appeals led by D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.368/2024, decided on
25.04.2024. The Division Bench observed and held as under :
"1. Heard on admission.
2. Though, learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that the land should not have been allotted to the weaker sections
of the society under Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Rules,1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996") but
the land ought to have been put to auction. The Panchayat has
passed a resolution to auction the plots but later on passed a
[2024:RJ-JD:43140-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-463/2024]
fresh resolution deciding to allot the land to the persons belonging
to disadvantaged class under Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that
even though no specific objection was taken to oppose the
allotment, the revision was filed raising specific issues in this
regard but in the revision also, the authority did not consider the
same.
4. We find that the Panchayat took a policy decision under the
resolution to make allotment of plots to weaker sections which is
permissible under the Rules of 1996.
5. It is also reflected from the impugned order and the record
of the case that even though objections were invited, the writ
petitioners did not submit any objection.
6. The plots were allotted to various persons from weaker
sections including the respondents. The appellants do not belong
to the weaker sections of the society.
7. The policy decision taken by the Panchayat to allot the plots
to the weaker sections under the provisions of Rule 158 of the
Rules of 1996 could not be assailed by the appellants as the Rule
allows such mode of allotment to weaker sections. The appellants
are not the persons belonging to weaker sections of the society.
Therefore, no case is made out to interfere.
8. Both these appeals are accordingly dismissed."
5. In view of the fact that other special appeals against the
same impugned judgment dated 03.11.2023 have already been
dismissed, the present special appeal too deserves the same fate
and is hence dismissed in light of judgment dated 25.04.2024
passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.368/2024.
6. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
12-Vij/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
