Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kapuraram vs Bhuri Devi on 6 October, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:43552]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3812/2020
Kapuraram S/o Shri Vachnaram, Aged About 51 Years, Resident
Of Aalasan, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Bhuri Devi W/o Shri Vachnaji, Resident Of Aalasan, Tehsil
Sayla, District Jalore.
2. Guman Singh S/o Shri Vachnaji, Resident Of Aalasan,
Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore.
3. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Vachnaji, Resident Of Aalasan,
Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore.
4. Uma Kanwar D/o Shri Vachnaji, Resident Of Aalasan,
Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore.
5. Keshar Singh S/o Shri Vachnaji, Resident Of Aalasan,
Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore.
6. Gram Panchayat Aalasan, Panchayat Samiti Sayla, District
Jalore Through Its Sarpanch/Gram Sevak.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mool Singh Panwar.
Mr. K.L. Thakur.
For Respondent(s) : None Present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
Reserved on:- 11/09/2025
Pronounced on:- 06/10/2025
Uploaded on:- 06/10/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by
the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional
District Collector, Jalore in Revision Petition No.14/2015 titled as
'Kapoora Ram v. Bhuri Devi and Ors.' whereby the learned
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:41:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43552] (2 of 5) [CW-3812/2020]
revisional court rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (the
Act of 1994) against issuance of alleged patta dated 28.02.1983 in
favor of Vachnaram S/o Roopaji Rajpurohit on the ground that a
civil suit seeking permanent injunction bearing civil original suit
No.90/2011 is pending adjudication before the court of Additional
Senior Civil Judge No.1, Jalore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
learned Additional District Collector, Jalore has grossly erred in
rejecting the revision petition filed under Section 97 of the Act of
1994 on the ground of pendency of a civil suit seeking permanent
injunction between the parties. He submitted that the suit for
injunction cannot decide the issue pertaining to validity of a patta
issued in the year 1983 as under Section 97 of the Act of 1994,
the revenue authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the
same in a revision petition.
3. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the
patta in question was issued in favour of late Vachnaram in the
year 1983 in gross violation of the procedure provided under the
Panchayati Raj Act and Rules and therefore it was the duty of the
Additional District Collector, Jalore to examine the legality and
validity of patta issued in favor of Vachnaram and record its
findings with regard to the same while deciding the revision
petition. The learned counsel submitted that the revision petition
ought not to have been dismissed on the ground that a simple suit
for injunction is pending between the parties before the competent
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:41:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43552] (3 of 5) [CW-3812/2020]
civil court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Ghewar
Chand v. State of Rajasthan" (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.8887/2017) decided on 11.08.2017.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record
of the case.
5. Having perused the case file, this Court finds that the
revision petition No. 14/2015 filed by the petitioner seeking
cancellation of the patta dated 28.02.1983 issued in favor of
Vachnaram was rejected by the learned Additional District
Collector, Jalore vide order dated 08.03.2016 on account that a
civil suit seeking permanent injunction filed by the respondents
against the petitioner was pending adjudication before the
competent civil court.
6. The petitioner against the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by
the learned Additional District Collector, Jalore has filed the
present Writ Petition after a delay of more than 04 years that too
when the civil suit seeking permanent injunction filed by the
respondents has been decreed in their favour by the competent
civil court - the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge No.1, Jalore
vide order dated 26.09.2019 whereby the petitioner has been
directed not to create any obstacle, hindrance, interference in the
peaceful possession of the suit property. The record of the case
does not indicate as to whether the petitioner has preferred an
appeal against the said decree.
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:41:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43552] (4 of 5) [CW-3812/2020]
7. The instant writ petition is also completely silent on the
aspect as to what steps were taken by the petitioner since 1983
till filing of the revision petition before the learned Additional
District Collector, Jalore in the year 2015 for seeking cancellation
of the patta issued in favor of Vachnaram during his lifetime, if the
same was issued in his favor in utter violation of the applicable
rules. The delay in approaching the revision court without any
justifiable reasons and after expiry of a reasonable time cannot be
held to be bonafide or unintentional. Further, the delay also cannot
be said to be bonafide for the reason that the civil suit was filed by
the respondents i.e. legal representatives of Vachnaram seeking
permanent injunction in the year 2010 which is prior to the filing
of the revision petition.
8. In the opinion of this Court, once a civil court has already
passed a decree in the matter restraining the petitioner from
interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property on the
basis of the material evidence produced before it, the same
cannot be interfered with by way of initiating proceedings under
Section 97 of the Act of 1994. Alternatively, the petitioner is
having remedy of challenging the decree passed by the learned
civil court before the appellate court, if so advised.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the learned
Additional District Collector, Jalore in the impugned order dated
08.03.2016 has committed no illegality in rejecting the revision
petition filed by the petitioner on account that a civil suit pending
adjudication between the parties.
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:41:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43552] (5 of 5) [CW-3812/2020]
10. Consequently, the present writ petition and stay petition are
dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
99-Divya/-
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:41:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
