Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:5533]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2089/2025
Mukesh Kumar S/o Puran Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Ward
No.13, Badopal Marg, Ramdev Mandir, Kishanpura, Tehsil
Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar. At Present Working On The
Post Of Patwri, Posted At Patwar Mandal Town Suratgarh District
Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer, Through Its
Registrar.
3. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, Division Bikaner.
4. The District Collector (Land Record), Sri Ganganagar.
5. Tehsildar, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.
6. Jitenda Sangwan, Patwari, Patwar Mandal Oadki, Tehsil
And District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhyuday Singh for
Mr. A.K. Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
28/01/2025
1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 15.01.2025
(Annex.2), vide which, petitioner has been transferred from
Patwar Circle Town Suratgarh Tehsil Suratgarh to Patwar Circle,
Thethar, Tehsil Surargarh District Sriganganagar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was initially
selected and recruited as a Patwari in 2017 and has been
[2025:RJ-JD:5533] (2 of 4) [CW-2089/2025]
performing his duties sincerely and diligently since then. He has
been discharging his responsibilities with utmost sincerity and to
the best of his abilities, without any complaints, and to the
satisfaction of the department. The petitioner is currently posted
as a Patwari at Patwar Mandal Town Suratgarh, since 2024.
However, by the impugned order dated 15.01.2025, the
petitioner's services have been transferred again without any
reasons or grounds provided. The Rules of 1957 clearly prohibit
the frequent transfer and posting of Patwaris, and the current
transfer order does not provide any justification for its issuance,
rendering it unjust and arbitrary on its face. A representation was
made to the District Collector in this regard, but it yielded no
results. The petitioner has not yet been relieved, and on
15.01.2025, the department issued another transfer list, placing
the private respondent in the petitioner's position. Hence, this writ
petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
4. First and foremost, my attention has also been drawn to
Rules 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:5533] (3 of 4) [CW-2089/2025]
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)
(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."
5. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:5533] (4 of 4) [CW-2089/2025]
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 petition is allowed. Impugned order dated
15.01.2025 qua the petitioner is 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
143-skm/-sp/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
