Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shailendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:5087]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1618/2025
Sonu S/o Sh. Sukhram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village 6-
Gmd, Ghamandia, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Sriganganagar District Sriganganagar.
2. The District Collector (Land Records) Sriganganagar,
District Sriganganagar.
3. The Tehsildar (Land Records), Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1678/2025, 1640/2025, 1642/2025,
1644/2025, 1756/2025, 1916/2025
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Sidhu.
Mr. RC Joshi.
Mr. Ankur Mathur
Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Raman Rathore.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
27/01/2025
1. Vide this common order, the aforesaid bunch is being
disposed of together as not only the facts involved are similar, but
even the issue therein is akin.
2. Illustratively, for the sake of brevity, recitals are being taken
from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1618/2025. Under challenge
herein is an order dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.P/3), vide which,
petitioner has been transferred from Patwar Circle Sardarpurabika,
Tehsil Suratgarh to 17-KND, Tehsil Rawla, District Sriganganagar.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is holding the post
of Patwari (Revenue) and is currently posted at Patwar Circle
Sardarpurabika, Tehsil Sriganganagar, Suratgarh, District.
However, vide an order dated 15.01.2025 (P/3), the petitioner has
been transferred from Patwar Circle Sardarpurabika, Tehsil
[2025:RJ-JD:5087] (2 of 4) [CW-1618/2025]
Suratgarh to 17-KND, Tehsil Rawla, District Sriganganagar, which
is about 250 km away from his current place of posting. The
impugned transfer order dated 15.01.2025 (P/3) passed by
respondent no.2 is alleged to be contrary to the circular dated
30.10.1993 issued by the State Government. The transfer order is
also in violation of the provisions of Rule 9 and 412 of the Rules,
1957. Moreover, by the impugned transfer order, the petitioner
has been transferred after just 10 months. Hence, this Petition.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
5. First and foremost, my attention has also been drawn to Rule
9 and 412 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules,
1957. The same being apposite and self speaking, read as under:-
"9. Transfers. -
(i) The Collector may transfer a Patwari from one circle or tehsil
to another in his own district: but no transfer of a Patwari from
one district to another shall be made without the sanction of the
Member, Land Records, Board of Revenue. Transfers from one
Division to Another will be sanctioned by the Board of Revenue.
The Sub-Divisional Officers are also empowered to transfer a
Patwari from one circle to another in the same tehsil or to another
tehsil in their sub-division on sufficient grounds.
Provided that if a Patwari is transferred out of the district
on his own request he shall rank junior to existing Patwar is of
that district.
(ia) The Sub-Divisional Officer may transfer a Patwari anywhere
within the Sub-Division and the Collector may transfer a Patwari
anywhere within the District:
Provided that the State Government may direct the
Collector for the transfer of a Patwari anywhere within the
District.
(ib) The Divisional Commissioner may transfer a Patwari
anywhere within the Division and the Board of Revenue may
transfer a Patwari anywhere within the State:
Provided that the State Government may direct the
Divisional Commissioner for the transfer of a Patwari anywhere
within the Division or the Board of Revenue for the transfer of a
Patwari anywhere within the State.
(emphasis supplied)
[2025:RJ-JD:5087] (3 of 4) [CW-1618/2025]
(ii) Transfers of patwaris should not be made unless the officer
has satisfied himself that such transfer is necessary in the interest
of efficiency of work or to fill up vacancy created by long leave,
resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of a Patwari. The
Patwari going on transfer shall have to complete all his record
and clear all his work in arrear before handling over charge to his
successor. The Tehsildar may, with the approval of the Sub-
Divisional Officer, get the incomplete record completed by
employing extra staff and paying such staff by deducting the
required amount from the salary of the negligent Patwari. The
unsatisfactory work or conduct of a Patwari should not be a
ground for his transfer but for penal action.
412. Administrative matters pertaining to Patwaris. -
The Collectors are solely responsible for the appointment, transfer
and discipline of Patwaris. Transfer of Patwaris are ordinarily
undesirable and should on no account be made to suit the
convenience of individuals. They can only be made under the
conditions given in paragraph 9 and these conditions should be
strictly observed. In order to avoid unnecessary transfers,
Patwaris picked out for transfer, should, so far as possible be
exchanged with one another rather than with other Patwaris.
Transfers by way of punishment are not contemplated by law.
Moreover, a transfer is hardly a substitute for punishment."
6. In light of aforesaid, reference may be had to a judgment
rendered in the case of Rajpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/2021), decided on
18.03.2021 wherein similar issue was involved. A Coordinate
Bench of this Court observed therein that unless a satisfaction
note is recorded by the competent authority, it would amount to
an indiscriminate exercise of the power of transfer of a Patwari. In
the case of the petitioners, no such satisfaction was recorded or
conveyed to the petitioners. Being relevant, Para No.26 of the
judgment, ibid, is reproduced herein below:
"26. In the present case, neither such satisfaction has been
recorded, nor the State has brought on record such satisfaction
arrived at by competent authority, before making extensive, rather
indiscriminate exercise of moving Patwaris."
6. I am in agreement with the view taken in the judgment ibid.
Consequently, the petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated
[2025:RJ-JD:5087] (4 of 4) [CW-1618/2025]
15.01.2025 qua the petitioners are set aside with liberty to the
respondents to pass fresh transfer orders in accordance with law.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
24 -Sumit-Jitender/-
49 - SKM/SP
33, 35 & 37-DhananjayS/Rmathur
88, 108 - AK Chouhan/-
Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
