Mangi Lal vs The District Collector ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1082 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1082 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 January, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mangi Lal vs The District Collector ... on 23 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:4539]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1590/2026

Mangi Lal S/o Shri Moola Ram Choudhary, Aged About 70 Years,
Resident Of Village Dhariya Tehsil Desuri District Pali.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The District Collector, Pali.
2.       Gram Panchayat Dhariya, Panchayat Samiti Rani, Tehsil
         Desuri District Pali Through Sarpanch.
3.       Guman Singh S/o Sabal Singh, Resident Of Dhariya Tehsil
         Desuri District Pali.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Roshan Lal.
For Respondent(s)            :



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

23/01/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer :-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction :

(i) The impugned judgment dated 29.03.2007 (Ann.5) passed by District Collector, Pali may kindly be declared highly arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

(ii) The revision petition filed by the respondent no.3 under section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed.

(iii) The Patta No.5964 Missal No.13/2000-2001 dated 18.01.2003 issued in favour of the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be restored.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 11:08:18 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4539] (2 of 5) [CW-1590/2026]

2. The facts, as narrated in the present writ petition, are that a

Patta was issued in favour of the present petitioner by the Gram

Panchayat, Dhariya, Panchayat Samiti Rani, District Pali on

18.01.2003 under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,

1996 ('the Rules of 1996').

2.1 Being aggrieved by the said patta, a revision petition bearing

No.13/2005 came to be filed by the respondent No.3 under

Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act of

1994') precisely on the ground that the patta was issued without

adhering to the requirements as mandated under Rule 157 of the

Rules of 1996, which was allowed vide order dated 29.03.2007.

While allowing the revision petition, the patta dated 18.01.2003

issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the matter

was remanded back to the Gram Panchayat to consider the matter

afresh after assessing the claim of the petitioners as well as that

of private respondent No.3 for the disputed plot. Being aggrieved

by the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the

impugned order dated 29.03.2007 submits that the patta was

issued after following due procedure of law. It is submitted that

the revisional court has committed a serious error in allowing the

revision petition. It is further submitted that the revisional court

placed heavy reliance on the fact that disputed patta was issued

under Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 and there was no material

available to suggest old possession of petitioner so also any

residential house existing on the disputed plot. It is also submitted

that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by giving a (Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 11:08:18 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4539] (3 of 5) [CW-1590/2026]

direction that the Gram Pancahyat should examine the claim of

the petitioner and the private respondent while adjudicating the

claim over the disputed piece of plot, as such claims can be

decided only in the suit proceedings.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

5. This Court takes note of the fact that patta was issued on

18.01.2003 and the revision petition was filed in the year 2005.

The same came to be allowed on 29.03.2007 and the petitioner

has preferred the present writ petition after about 19 years. The

petitioner has not assigned any reason explaining such inordinate

delay in approaching the writ Court.

5.1 Even otherwise, the revisional court has observed that there

is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was having an old

residential house so also old possession based on which, the Gram

Panchayat could have issued patta under Rule 157 of the Rules of

1996. This Court also takes note of the fact that the revisional

court has cancelled the patta and has remanded the matter to the

Gram Panchayat to decide the issue afresh. The revisional court

directed the Gram Panchayat to hear the petitioner as well as

private respondent before taking any fresh decision.

For ready reference, Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996 is

reproduced as under :-

"157. Regularisation of old houses. -

[1] Where the persons are in possession of the old houses in Abadi land and desire to get a patta issued, patta may be issued by the Panchayat in Form XXIII-A after depositing the charges as under : -

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 11:08:18 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4539] (4 of 5) [CW-1590/2026]

(i) For area upto 300 sq. yards or constructed area including 25 percent of constructed area subject to maximum area 300 sq. yards:

(a) For old houses constructed more than fifty years before the date of commencement of these rules Rs. 100 /-

(b) For old houses constructed during the seventy years immediately preceding to date of 31st December, 2016 Rs. 200/-

(ii) For area, exceeding the area specified in clause (i) above, on such excess area 25 percent of the market rates recommended by the District Level Committee constituted under Clause (b) of Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 :

Provided that no fees shall be charged under sub- clause (a) an only 10 percent fees shall be charged under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) above from the families included in the list of below poverty line."

As per Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996, two essential

conditions are that the person seeking patta under the said Rule

must have been in old possession and the premises must be

residential.

5.2 The petitioner has though placed on record the panchayat

proceedings, however, even these proceedings do not indicate

anywhere that the petitioner's case was considered under Rule

157 of the Rules of 1996 on the basis of his old possession over

his residential house. In these circumstances, this Court does not

find any error in the order passed by the revisional court.

5.3 As far as the decision of the revisional court directing the

Gram Panchayat to hear both the parties before issuing patta is

concerned, this Court finds that such direction was rightly issued

considering the counter claim of both the parties over the disputed

plot.