Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abhay Kanwar Ratnu vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:46332]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16963/2025
Abhay Kanwar Ratnu W/o Shri Kallash Dan Ratnu, Aged About 66
Years, R/o Village Barath Ka Gaon, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special
Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Sub- Divisional
Magistrate, Pokaran, District- Jaisalmer.
4. Municipal Board, Pokaran, District- Jaisalmer. Through Its
Executive Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Singh Shekhawat.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr.Adv.-cum-AAG
with Mr. Ayush Gehlot.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Reportable
Order
Reserved on : 14/10/2025
Pronounced on : 31/10/2025
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer :-
A. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated
01.04.2025 (Annexure-4) passed by the District Collector,
Jaisalmer and entire proceedings initiated for cancellation of
registered patta may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed
and set-aside.
B. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner.
C. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed
with costs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent - Municipal Board, Pokran issued a public notice in a
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (2 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
local newspaper, wherefrom the petitioner came to know that
patta issued in her favour on 30.09.2024 was proposed to be
cancelled. Anticipating further action, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition, whereby the action of the Municipal Board,
Pokran so also the communication issued by the District Collector
dated 01.04.2025 have been challenged.
2.1 Further, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
patta in question was issued after following due process of law and
later patta was got registered. If at all the authorities intend to
proceed against the petitioner for cancellation of patta, then they
were required to proceed in accordance with law by approaching
competent civil court. The respondents have no authority to
proceed under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act,
2009 ('the Act of 2009').
2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
following judgments :-
(1)- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5648/2004 : Ramchandra Vs.
District Collector, Hanumangarh & Ors., decided on
15.03.2016.
(2)- D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.899/2017 : State of
Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Smt. Parvati Devi & Ors., decided
on 01.11.2017.
(3)- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9438/2018 : Gopal Patel Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr., decided on 02.02.2021.
(4)- D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.16/2022 : Smt. Pankhu
Bai Vs. Shailesh Kumar & Ors., decided on 24.01.2022.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that
based on a complaint, a committee was constituted by the District
Collector and thereafter, considering the report submitted by the
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (3 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
committee, impugned communication dated 01.04.2025 was
issued, wherein directions were given to the Municipality to
proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is further
stated that patta in question was issued in collusive manner while
playing fraud upon the Municipal Board.
3.1 On the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the District Collector has not only directed to proceed
in accordance with law but a positive direction has been given to
cancel the pattas.
3.2 At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the impugned communication dated 01.04.2025 issued by the
District Collector may be quashed and set-aside and the
respondents may be given liberty to proceed against the petitioner
in accordance with law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. The petitioner has questioned the competence of the District
Collector in issuing the communication dated 01.04.2025,
however, this Court does not intend to deliberate the said issue,
more particularly, in view of the fact that learned counsel for the
respondents has fairly agreed that the said communication may be
quashed and set-aside.
5.1 As far as the proposed action is concerned, the same is
based on the power conferred upon the Municipal Board under
Section 73-B of the Act of 2009. For ready reference, Section 73-B
of the Act of 2009 is reproduced as under :-
"73-B. Revocation of allotment and cancellation of lease deed.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Act or any other law for the time being in force, if, at any time,
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (4 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
before or after the lease deed, executed and registered, in respect
of land disposed of under this Chapter either on lease hold basis
or on free hold basis, the Municipality has reasons to believe that
allotment of land has been obtained, and lease deed has been
executed, by way of misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of
false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, it
shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing
to show cause why an order of revocation of allotment and
cancellation of the lease deed of the land should not be made.
(2) The notice shall-
(a) specify the grounds on which an order of revocation of
allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land is
proposed to be made; and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons
who are or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the
land, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or
before such date as is specified in the notice being a date not
earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof.
(3) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person
in pursuance of a notice under sub-section (1) and any evidence
he may produce in support of the same and after giving him, a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Municipality is
satisfied that the lease is obtained by misrepresentation of facts or
on the basis of false documents or with collusion or in
contravention of law, the Municipality may, make an order of
revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the
land and also make an order of eviction, for reasons to be
recorded therein, directing that the land shall be vacated by all
persons who are or may be in occupation thereof or any part
thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer
door or some other conspicuous part of the land.
(4) An appeal shall lie from an order of the Municipality made
under sub-section (3) to the State Government or the officer
authorized by it.
(5) An appeal under sub-section (4) shall be preferred within
fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to
the appellant:
Provided that the State Government or the officer
authorized by it may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the
said period of fifteen day, if it or he is satisfied that the appellant
was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(6) Every appeal under sub-section (4) shall be disposed of by
the State Government or the officer authorized by it as
expeditiously as possible.
(7) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit
or proceeding in respect of any order, notice, proceedings or
action taken under this section."
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (5 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
5.2 As quoted above, it is apparently clear that Section 73-B of
the Act of 2009 empowers the Municipal Board to initiate action
under Section 73-B of the Act even before or after issuing of the
patta so also action can be taken even if patta is registered. That
being so, the action initiated by the respondent - Municipal Board
while exercising powers under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009
cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
5.3 It may also be noted that in the present case, it is stated by
learned counsel for the respondent that pattas in question have
been issued while submitting forged document and in collusion
with the authorities. This Court is of the firm opinion that if the
patta is issued in flagrant violation of the Rules and obtained in
fraudulent manner, then the Municipal Board is well within its
jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 73-B of the Act of
2009 and such power can be exercised even in cases where the
patta is registered.
5.4 In view of the discussion made above, the objection as
raised by the petitioner with regard to the challenge made in the
present writ petition questioning the competence of Municipal
Board to initiate action in the cases of registered patta is,
therefore, rejected.
5.5 So far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner are concerned, it is noted that the competency of
Collector under revisional jurisdiction to interfere with registered
deeds/patta was put to challenge therein. The judgment in the
case of Ramchandra (supra) has been passed relying on earlier
rendition in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7572/2006; Municipal
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (6 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
Council Pali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on
13.02.2013), while observing as under:
"19. This Court in the case of Municipal Council, Pali Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 7572/2006 decided on
13.02.2013), reported in (2013) 4 RLW 3341 (Raj.), deciding a
bunch of about 31 writ petitions, vide judgment dated 13.02.2013,
held that in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 80 of
the Act of 1959, which empowers the State Government or any
officer authorized by the State Government, including District
Collector, and providing for transfer of property, held that once a
registered conveyance deed or lease deed is executed by the
competent body, the revisional powers cannot be invoked or
exercised to undo such registered document and only a competent
civil court has the power to do so upon appropriately instituted
suit at the instance of Municipal Board itself. The relevant paras
24 to 29 of the said judgment are quoted herein below for ready
reference: -
"24. On a plain and clear reading of the said
provisions, the power to set aside or quash registered
conveyance deeds in the form of sale-deeds or lease-
deeds is not envisaged in these provisions. Such
powers obviously and in general law lies with only the
competent civil courts, because under the registered
conveyance deeds, the rights in property stand
transferred to third party or person whose vested
rights can be disturbed only by a decree of competent
civil court. One cannot lose sight of the fact that
Section 80 providing for "provisions relating to
transfer of property and contracts" contained in
Chapter III of the 'Conduct of Business' in the
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 does not vest any
power of the civil court with the State Government or
authority authorized by the State, namely, the District
Collector. That is why, while giving such powers to
modify, cancel or rescind whole or in part the
proposal made for lease, sale or transfer the
Government land, further power is given to the
learned Dist. Collectors are only to modify, cancel or
rescind "any action or proceedings taken in
pursuance thereof or may give any other directions as
may be deemed proper" which may include action or
direction to initiate steps by filing suits for
cancellation of registration sale-deeds or lease deeds.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (7 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
Had Legislation wanted to give specific power to the
learned District Collector or the State Government to
cancel, modify or rescind even the registered
conveyance deeds in pursuance of such proposal, it
would have specifically provided for the same, but it
has not been done.
25. Even Sub-Section (3) of Section 80 only
envisages a situation where a person has entered into
possession of the land in question for which the
proposal and subsequent action is found to be illegal
and in contravention of law and therefore giving him
the status of a deemed unauthorized occupant under
the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1965, the provisions
of Sub-section (3) of Section 80 empowers the
authorities concerned to evict the person concerned
from land and not from the constructed house only if
such lease, sale or transfer even though based on a
proposal in contravention of law, has not yet been
confirmed by the State Government or prescribed
authority in the prescribed manner and on the
prescribed conditions. It is only if such transfer or
contract is not confirmed as aforesaid, the
consideration, if any, received by the Board,
Chairman, Vice-Chairman, member or officer of the
board for such lease, sale, transfer or contract, shall
as far as possible be refunded to the person evicted
from such land and the words 'house' or 'construction'
are conspicuous by their absence in Section 80(2) or
80(3) of the Act.
26. The parameters and limits of Section 80,
therefore, in the opinion of this Court, are limited to
the extent of modifying, cancelling or rescinding the
proposal for lease, sale etc., if found to be in
contravention of law till the party concerned has not
raised any construction thereon and it is still open
land from which the person so concerned can be
evicted under Section 80(3) of the Act deeming him to
be an unauthorized occupant under the provisions of
1965 Act. The last two words in Section 80(3) 'such
land' are not without significance. These provisions
also do no permit cancellation of registered
conveyance deeds like lease deeds or sale deeds by the
District Collector and he can only direct the
authorities to take appropriate measures before the
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (8 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
competent civil courts for cancellation of such
registered conveyance deeds. Therefore, with great
respects, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner - Municipal Council, Mr. T.S. Champawat,
that if the original proposal is found to be illegal, the
registered conveyance deed should automatically fall
to the ground, which he submitted relying upon the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mithoo Shahani V/s Union of India and ors.
reported in AIR 1964 SC 1536, is misconceived and
cannot be accepted. The case of Mithoo Shahani
(supra) is distinguishable. It was a case of 'sanad'
issued in pursuance of allotment order issued by
incompetent authority. 'Sanad' cannot be equated with
the registered conveyance deeds transferring property
rights to which provisions of Transfer of Property Act
apply. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a
case arising under the provisions of Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
The 'Sanad' (right to occupy) could only entitle such
person, if displaced, to a particular compensation and
rehabilitation as envisaged under that Act. The same
cannot be equated with the person who has got his
rights in the property under the registered conveyance
deeds governed by the Transfer of Property Act. As
aforesaid, since Section 80 does not confer any power
of civil courts upon the District Collector or the State
Government and the provisions of Section 80(2)(b)
read with Section 80(3) also do not stipulate any such
power, therefore, no such power can be impliedly read
into these provisions as vested with the learned
District Collector. Therefore, this contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.S.
Champawat, is liable to be rejected and is accordingly
rejected. For the same reason, the decision of
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Smt.
Rampyari (supra) decided on 5.5.2006 also cannot be
applied in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
27. Turning back to the facts of the present case,
since the respondents in their reply filed to the writ
petition along with the documents have contended that
the registered conveyance deeds were executed in
their favour and they had also paid the price for the
same, therefore, the learned Dist. Collector cannot be
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (9 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
empowered to set aside the same, even though this
Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Dist.
Collector has power to deal with such matters beyond
the 'proposal' stage as held by this Court in the case
of Municipal Board, Sanchore (supra) by the learned
Single Judge as well as Division Bench but such
powers of Collector stops short and just before the
actual cancellation of registered conveyance deeds,
sale deeds or lease deeds. However, the contention of
the respondents that no fruitful purpose will be served
by remanding the case back to the learned District
Collector, also cannot be accepted at its face value.
Since in view of law laid down as aforesaid by this
Court up to Division Bench in the case of Municipal
Board, Sanchore (supra), the learned District
Collector has power to deal with such cases even
beyond "proposal" stage and the questions of facts
raised by the respondents in present set of writ
petitions before this Court that equities have arisen in
their favour by raising of construction under the
permissions granted by the Municipal Council itself
and that there are registered sale-deed or lease-deeds
in their favour or that they are holding the decrees in
their favour from the competent civil courts, these are
all questions of facts, which are required to be proved
before the learned District Collector in accordance
with law by producing the relevant documents before
him in individual cases.
28. The process of determination of these questions
of facts on case to case basis cannot be curtailed on
mere averments or even such documents, which are
not yet proved, but are produced along with the reply
to the writ petition of the Municipal Council, Pali
before this Court in some of the cases. Therefore, the
remand of the case to the learned Dist. Collector in
the present case is required to be made
notwithstanding this contention of the learned
counsels for the private respondents and the legal
position delineated above and the learned Dist.
Collector is obviously expected to decide the cases
again upon such remand in the light of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances including the orders passed
by the Hon'ble Minister on 14.10.1992 quoted above
and also the powers conferred under Section 80(2)(b)
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (10 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
read with Section 80(3) as delineated above in this
judgment.
29. Therefore, with the aforesaid observations and
directions and the delineation of powers of learned
Dist. Collector under Section 80 of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 1959, these writ petitions of the
Municipal Council, Pali are partly allowed and setting
aside the earlier impugned order Annex. 2 dtd.
20.8.1998 of the Dist. Collector and Order dtd.
22.2.2005 (Annex. 4) of the Divisional Commissioner,
Jodhpur, the matters are restored back to the learned
Dist. Collector, Pali for decision afresh in accordance
with law. No order as to costs."
20. In view of this legal position, this Court is satisfied that in the
present case, the impugned orders passed by the learned District
Collector assuming the jurisdiction under Order (Annex. 15)
dated 23.06.2004 and the subsequent order (Annex. 16) dated
03.12.2004 cancelling the said registered lease-deed in favour of
present petitioner, cannot be sustained as being without
jurisdiction and are thus liable to be quashed and set aside by this
Court. Ordered accordingly."
5.6 The judgment passed in the case of Ramchandra (supra)
was upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Parvati
Devi (supra) wherein it held as under:-
"From perusal of the facts, it reveals that the Collector,
Hanumangarh while exercising the revisional powers set aside a
sale deed executed by the Municipal Board in favour of
respondents. Learned Single Bench, by relying upon a judgment of
this Court in Municipal Council, Pali Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7572/2006) reported in (2013) 4
RLW 3341 (Raj.), held that a registered sale deed could not have
been set aside in revisional jurisdiction. We do not find any wrong
with the finding arrived at by learned Single Bench. It is well
settled that a registered sale deed should have been set aside only
by way of a decree of a Civil Court and not otherwise. In view of
whatever stated above, we are not inclined to grant further time to
respondents to place certified copy of the order impugned on
record."
5.7 The above quoted judgment of Division Bench was relied
upon in the case of Smt. Pankhu Bai (supra) while observing
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (11 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
that it is the Civil Court only which has jurisdiction to deal with
registered deeds and not the Collector under revisional
jurisdiction. The relevant paras of the said judgment are
reproduced as under:-
"In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the District
Collector, Sirohi was absolutely justified in dismissing the
revision preferred by the respondents writ petitioners, observing
that the jurisdiction to examine validity of the registered
allotment deed lies exclusively with the Civil Court concerned.
The learned Single Bench, while deciding the controversy by way
of the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2021, failed to address
this pertinent objection raised by the appellant's counsel
regarding the maintainability of the revision and the aspect
regarding jurisdiction of the District Collector, Sirohi to entertain
the challenge referred to supra. As the revision itself was filed
before a forum not having jurisdiction, there was no justification
to entertain a writ petition against the dismissal of the revision.
As a consequence, we are of the opinion that the impugned
order does not stand to scrutiny as the same is contrary to the
settled principles of law and the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court referred to supra in the case of State of Rajasthan &
Ors. Vs. Parvati Devi & Ors."
5.8 Further, the case of Gopal Patel (supra) was decided in light
of judgment rendered in the case of Ramchandra (supra) while
observing as under:-
"15. Having regard to the submissions made by rival counsel
and after considering the judgment of Ramchandra (supra), this
Court is of the considered view that registered patta granted in
favour of petitioners cannot be annulled by the District Collector
or any revisional authority in exercise of its revisional power.
16. The registered patta can only be questioned in a suit or set
aside by a Civil Court.
17. Indisputably, all the petitions lay challenge to revisional
proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar and the plots of the land of
all the petitioners are adjoining or are situated at the same
khasra.
18. This being the position, all the writ petitions are allowed;
impugned notices dated 13.03.2018 issued to the petitioner(s)
herein and proceedings in furtherance thereof, are quashed."
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (12 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
5.9 In view of the above, it can be fairly concluded that all the
judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner stand
upon the rendition in the case of Municipal Council Pali (supra).
It is pertinent to note that the said judgment was challenged
before the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
No.485/2013; Municipal Council, Pali Vs. Deendayal and
others (decided on 16.07.2015) wherein the Court set aside the
finding that the Collector had no powers to quash the registered
sale deed while observing as under:
"10. We do not find any error of law in the order of the learned
Single Judge, by which he had, after accepting the interpretation
of Section 80(2)(b) of the Act of 1959 following the Division
Bench judgments, held that the District Collector had powers,
even beyond the stage of `proposal', to cancel any allotment,
lease or sale and that in the circumstances, the orders of the
District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner were not
valid in law and that all questions of facts should be decided by
the Collector afresh in accordance with law.
11. The Special Appeals are allowed only to the extent that the
observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 23 to 26
that the Collector may have powers to cancel the allotments,
lease or sale, even beyond the proposal of the State, he had no
powers to quash the registered sale deed, are set aside. The
remaining part of the operative portion of the order of learned
Single Judge in quashing the order of the District Collector and
that of the Divisional Commissioner, Pali and directing the
District Collector, Pali to decide the matter afresh, is
maintained."
5.10 In view of the above-quoted observation made by the
Division Bench in the case of Municipal Council, Pali Vs.
Deendayal and others, the judgments cited by learned counsel
for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner. The outcome of
the said judgment passed by the Division Bench is to the effect
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (13 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
that even if patta is registered still same can be questioned if the
patta is issued dehors the Rules.
5.11 It is to be noted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
while passing the judgment in the case of Ramchandra (supra)
had considered Sections 80 & 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities
Act, 1959 ('the Act of 1959'). For ready reference, Sections 80 &
300 of the Act of 1959 are reproduced as under :-
"Section 80 (Provisions relating to transfer of property and
contracts)
(1) Every board shall be competent, subject to the prescribed
restrictions & conditions to lease (regularise) sell or therewise
transfer any movable or immovable property belonging to it,
including municipal land as also any Govt. land and so far as is not
inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of this Act and the
rules made there under, to enter into and perform all such contracts
as it may consider necessary or expedient in order to carry into
effect the said provisions and purposes :
Provided that
(i) no such lease, sale, transfer and contract shall be binding on
a board unless it is in confirmity with the provisions of this Act and
rules made thereunder; and
(ii) no lease, sale, transfer of or any other contract respecting
any Govt. land shall be valid unless it is confirmed by the
prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and on the prescribed
conditions.
Explanation : For the purpose of this section, expression
"Government land" means any land
(a) which has become vested in a board under clause (e) Sub-
sec.(2) of Section 92; or
(b) which is a Nazul land as defined in sec. 3 of the Rajasthan
Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956); or
(c) which may be placed at the disposal of the municipality by
the State Government and the land which are deemed to have
been placed at the disposal of a municipality under section
90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act No.15 of
1956.
(2) (a) the State Government or any Officer authorised by it
in this behalf may, for the purpose of satisfying as to the
correctness, legality, or propriety of any proposal to lease, sale or
transfer of any Government land made by or on behalf of a board or
by any member Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Officer of a board or
by any member Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Officer of a board call
for the relevant record and may while doing so direct that pending
the examination of the matter, the proposal to lease, sell or transfer
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (14 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
of the Government land shall remain in abeyance and no action in
furtherance thereof shall be taken till the decision of the State
Government or of the aforesaid officer under Sub-Sec.(2)(b).
(b) If after examination of the record and after giving to the
person interested in such proposal, a reasonable opportunity of
being heard, the State Government or the officer authorised as
aforesaid, is satisfied that the proposal to lease, sell or transfer the
Government land is not in accordance with or in contravention of
the provisions of this Act, it may be order published in the Official
Gazette, modify, cancel or rescind wholly or in part the proposal
made for lease, sale or transfer of the Government land or any
action or proceeding taken in pursuance thereof or may give any
other direction as may be deemed proper.
(3) Where in pursuance of any lease, sale, transfer or any other
contract made by a board or by the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or
any member or Officer of a board, in contravention of the
provisions of this section, any person has entered into the
possession of any municipal land or Government land, such person
shall be deemed to be in unauthorized occupation within the
meaning of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1965 (Rajasthan Act 2 of 1965) and
shall be liable to eviction from such land to all the liabilities as to
the payment of rent or damages for use and occupation under that
Act unless notwithstanding anything contained in that Act, such
lease, sale or transfer or contract is confirmed by the State
Government or the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner
and on the prescribed conditions : Provided that where any such
lease, sale, transfer or contract is not confirmed as aforesaid, the
consideration, if any, received by the board, Chairman, Vice-
Chairman, member or officer of the board for such lease, sale,
transfer or contract shall, as far as possible, be refunded to the
person evicted from such land.)"
"Section 300. Power to call for records - [(1) The State
Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State
Govt., may, for the purpose of being satisfied as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order passed or purporting to have been
passed, under this Act, by or on behalf of any board, its Chairman,
Vice-chairman, any member or officer or a Collector or other
officer appointed by the State Govt. in that behalf, call for the
relevant record, and may, in doing so, direct that pending the
examination of such record, such order shall be held in abeyance
and no action in furtherance thereof shall be taken till the division
of the State Government or of the authority authorised in this behalf
by the State Government under sub-section (2)].
(2) On examining the records the officer or authority authorised
as aforesaid may reverse or modify such order."
A bare perusal of Section 80 of the Act of 1959 would
indicate that there is no provision for questioning the patta it
being registered and perhaps for this reason, the Co-ordinate
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (15 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
Bench of this Court was persuaded to hold that it is the civil court
alone who is competent to examine the validity of patta after it
being registered. Though the decision in the case of Ramchandra
(supra) cannot be accepted in view of the discussion made above,
but even otherwise considering the fact that Section 73-B of the
Act of 2009 specifically empowers the concerned Board / Council
to examine the validity of patta despite it being registered leaves
no room of doubt that the concerned municipality can proceed to
cancel or rescind from its decision to issue patta if it is found that
the same was issued dehors the Rules or in collusive manner or by
playing fraud upon the authorities. Mere registration of such patta
would not validate the same.
5.12 While dealing with a similar controversy as raised in the
case of Ramchandra (supra), the Court in the case of Smt.
Shanti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 8148/2012 (decided on 25.11.2016) held as
under:
"At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
sale deed cannot be cancelled except through a civil suit. The District
Collector has no right to cancel the same. The said argument does not
help the petitioner in the facts of the present case. There is no registered
Patta and nor any sale deed has been registered in any of the above
cases except in CWP No.8147/2012. No doubt, a registered sale deed
cannot be set aside in revisional jurisdiction and that the civil suit is the
proper remedy. However, same is not a bar in case the very Patta is
unlawfully issued as held by this Court in the case of Nagar Mal Vs.
Addl. District Collector, Sikar & Ors. reported in 2013(1) WLC (Raj.)
768. Para 6 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"As far as the argument of the counsel for the
petitioners with regard to the issue of the pattas
being registered and therefore being beyond the
scope of correction by resort to revising power is
concerned, I am of the view that the revising
power under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 cannot
be made redundant by the mere registration of
pattas unlawfully issued in the first instance
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (16 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
SBCWP NO.11006/12 7 to the petitioners as they
appear to have been in the present case.
Registration of the pattas is only a consequential
event and when the pattas are found to have been
unlawfully issued contrary to the obtaining rules
and even by resort to fraud, the mere registration
thereof cannot be treated as a safe harbour. It is
trite that fraud vitiates and unravels everything
built on it. The cancellation of pattas by the
Additional Collector will also thus entail its
inexorable consequences in law rendering the
registration inconsequential."
As also, the Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Municipal
Council, Pali Vs. Deendayal and Others:: D.B. Civil Special Appeal
No.485/2013 and other connected matters, decided on 16.07.2015
held:-
"We do not find any error of law in the order of the
learned Single Judge, by which he had, after
accepting the interpretation of Section 80(2)(b) of
the Act of 1959 following the Division Bench
judgments, held that the District Collector had
powers, even beyond the stage of 'proposal', to
cancel any allotment, lease or sale and that in the
circumstances, the orders of the District Collector
and the Divisional Commissioner were not valid in
law and that all questions of facts should be
decided by the Collector afresh in accordance with
law."
From the above, it is evident that the petitioner was not eligible
for allotment of the plot under Rule 157(1) of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Rules. The said allotment is for the weaker section and
to recognise the settled possession and in no way provided to enrich
those who already have another residential house or site."
The above-quoted judgment was upheld by the Division
Bench in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.128/2017 (decided on
27.03.2017). Further, a perusal of the judgments reflects that the
same was passed relying upon the observations made in the case
of Municipal Council, Pali Vs. Deendayal and others (supra)
by the Division Bench so also the judgment passed in the case of
Nagar Mal Vs. Additional District Collector and Ors.; S.B.
Civil Writ Petition Nos.11006-11008 of 2012 (decided on
30.07.2012). It is pertinent to note that the judgment passed in
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (17 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
the case of Nagar Mal (supra) was upheld in D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 1383/2012 against which SLP being Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No(s).22045-22047/2015 was dismissed on
10.08.2015. Meaning thereby, the judgment rendered in the said
case attained finality wherein it is stated in unequivocal terms that
registration would not stand as a hurdle to set aside a patta issued
dehors the law or fraudulently. Furthermore, it was observed in
the case of Issack Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 918/2017 (decided on 23.10.2018)
that "suffice it to say that the registration of the document by
itself does not confer any title over the property and thus, if the
patta on the strength of which appellant was claiming right over
the disputed land, is found to be illegal and void, the State
Government exercising revisional power under Section 97 of the
Act, was well within its jurisdiction in annulling the decision of the
Gram Panchayat in pursuance whereof the appellant was claiming
right over the disputed property."
5.13 As an upshot of the above discussion, the contention
raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the
patta/deed being registered can neither be accepted on basis of
the judgments cited nor on basis of law applicable i.e. Section
73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. As already
observed in the foregoing paras, the language of the said section
is unambiguous as it clearly encompasses the word 'registered'
therefore, the Municipality is competent to take action beyond any
iota of doubt.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46332] (18 of 18) [CW-16963/2025]
6. As far as proposed action is concerned, it may be stated that
the decision has been taken to take action against the petitioner
afresh in terms of Section 73-B of the Act of 2009.
7. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the
respondent - Board would be examining the entire issue afresh
without being influenced by the impugned communication dated
01.04.2025.
8. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the
respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to set-aside the
impugned communication dated 01.04.2025 and any further
action based on the said communication and direct the Municipal
Board, Pokran to proceed against the petitioner, if need be, strictly
in accordance with law without being influenced by the impugned
communication dated 01.04.2025.
9. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 12:51:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
