[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Narayani Bai vs The District Collector ... on 16 February, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:8546]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3628/2026
Smt. Narayani Bai W/o Late Shri Pirulal Ji Khatik, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of Khatik Mohalla, Railmagra, Tehsil Railmagra,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Collector, Rajsamand, Office Of The District
Collector, Collectorate, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
2. Gram Panchayat, Mohi, Through Its Sarpanch/gram Vikas
Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Rajsamand, District Rajsamand,
Rajasthan.
3. Shri Shankar Lal S/o Shri Nathulal Ji Khatik, Aged About 51
Years, Resident Of Mohi, Tehsil Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
4. Bank Of Maharashtra, Through Its Branch Manager, Rajsamand
Branch (Branch Code 1921), District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Saraswat
Mr. Vijender Kumar
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
16/02/2026
By way of filing the present civil writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned
above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be graciously pleased to:
a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction to call for the records of Panchayat
Revision Petition No. 19/2025 from the office of the
District Collector, Rajsamand (Respondent No. 1);
b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction to quash and set aside the impugned
order dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the
District Collector, Rajsamand;
c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction, thereby cancelling the Patta No.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 05:39:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8546] (2 of 3) [CW-3628/2026]
1847 dated 14.04.2018 issued by Respondent No. 2 in
the sole name of Respondent No. 3;
d) Issue a further direction to the Respondents,
particularly Respondent No. 4, to hand over the peaceful
and vacant possession of the property in question to the
Petitioner, upon the Petitioner depositing the outstanding
loan amount as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court,
and to secure the Petitioner's 1/2 undivided share in the
said property;
e) Issue an appropriate order that the mortgage created
by Respondent No. 3 in favour of Respondent No. 4 Bank
shall not be binding upon the Petitioner's undivided share
in the property in question;
e) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice,
equity, and good conscience.
f) Award the costs of this petition in favour of the
Petitioner."
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court
finds that the petitioner, who is the sister of respondent No.3 -
Shankar Lal, has filed Revision Petition No.19/2025 under Section
97 of the Panchayati Raj Act seeking cancellation of the patta
issued in favour of her brother in the year 2018. The petitioner
has assailed the said patta on the ground that she, being a legal
heir of late Nathulal Ji, is an interested person in the property and
that the patta was issued in favour of her brother without
considering her share in inheritance.
3. This Court further finds that the property in respect of which
the patta was issued had been mortgaged by respondent No.3 -
Shri Shankar Lal with the Bank of Maharashtra. Upon his failure to
repay the loan installments, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act
were initiated against him, and a notice for sale of the mortgaged
property by way of auction was issued by the Bank.
4. Prima facie, this Court finds that the petitioner remained
silent for nearly five years from the date of issuance of the patta
in favour of her brother and did not question the same during that
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 05:39:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8546] (3 of 3) [CW-3628/2026]
period. There is nothing on record to suggest that the patta was
issued by the Gram Panchayat in violation of any statutory
provisions, such as non-issuance of public notice, failure to invite
objections, or lack of verification of family members. It appears
that only after initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act
against respondent No.3 - Shankar Lal did the petitioner raise a
dispute regarding the issuance of the patta, ostensibly with a view
to stall or delay the SARFAESI proceedings, by asserting that her
share in inheritance had been ignored.
5. Any interference at this stage on the ground that the patta
was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Rajsamand without
adjudicating the petitioner's alleged legal rights would, in effect,
amount to interference with the SARFAESI proceedings initiated
against respondent No.3 - Shankar Lal by the Bank. It is settled
law that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be interfered
with by civil or revenue courts. Therefore, if the petitioner is
genuinely aggrieved and serious about asserting her legal rights in
the disputed property, she is at liberty to seek appropriate relief in
accordance with law, including claiming her share in sale
proceeds, after the property is sold or auctioned by the Bank.
6. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition
stand dismissed.
7. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
216-divya/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 05:39:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
