Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kailash Chandra Mali vs District Collector ... on 18 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:42382]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17509/2025
Kailash Chandra Mali S/o Moolchand Mali, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Pansal, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. District Collector, Bhilwara.
2. Gram Panchayat Bhagwanpura, Through Village
Development Officer Kanhaiyalal Mali, Gram Panchayat
Bhagwanpura, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Madhav Vyas.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
18/09/2025
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers :-
i). the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the
impugned judgment dated 24/06/2025 (Annex.P/5) passed by the
Learned District Collector Bhilwara in Revision Petition
No.26/2022 Gram Panchayat Bhagwanpura Vs. Kailash
Chandra Mali & Anr. may kindly be quashed and set aside as if
never passed;
ii). that the Patta (Annex.P/1) issued in favour of the
petitioner may kindly be restored and be maintained;
iii). any other relief, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners;
(iv) the cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a patta was
issued in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat on
24.05.2017. After the issuance of the patta, it was registered
before the Sub-Registrar, Mandal. The said patta was subsequently
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 04:18:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42382] (2 of 3) [CW-17509/2025]
challenged by respondent No.2 - Gram Panchayat by filing a
revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Act, 1994 ('the Act of 1994'). The revision petition was allowed
vide the impugned order dated 24.06.2025.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits
that the revisional court has recorded the contents of the revision
petition so also the written submissions made by the petitioner.
However, no findings have been recorded while allowing the
revision petition. In the operative part of the impugned judgment,
the revisional court has cited certain provisions of the Act of 1994
and has alleged that on account of violation of the said provisions,
the patta deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
2.2 It is stated that no findings have been recorded regarding
how the provisions of the Act of 1994 in the present case were
violated nor any reason have been recorded on the basis of which,
the revisional court has drawn the conclusion for non-compliance
of the provisions of the Act of 1994. Therefore, the impugned
order deserves to be quashed and set-aside on this ground alone.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and states that patta has rightly been cancelled as the
same was issued in the previous tenure of the Gram Panchayat
and even the price paid by the petitioner is much lower than the
market price. Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to
justify the impugned order, however, he was not in a position to
controvert the fact that the impugned order was passed without
due application of mind and without recording any reasons for
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 04:18:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42382] (3 of 3) [CW-17509/2025]
arriving at the conclusion declaring the patta to be bad in the eyes
of law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. A bare reading of the impugned judgment dated 24.06.2025
including the operative part of the said judgment clearly shows
that the revisional court has merely quoted the submissions made
in the revision petition so also in the written submissions filed by
the petitioner. However, no findings have been recorded as to how
the provisions of the Act of 1994 were not followed in the present
case. No factual discussion has been made nor any reasoning has
been assigned with regard to the market value of the plot so also
the other irregularities, which have been alleged in the revision
petition.
6. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding
that the impugned order lacks proper consideration of facts so
also lacks rational reasoning. Accordingly, on this ground alone,
writ petition deserves acceptance and therefore, the same is
allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set-
aside.
7. The matter is remanded to the District Collector, Bhilwara to
decide the revision petition afresh strictly in accordance with law
after affording opportunity to all the parties.
8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed
of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
173-Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 04:18:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
