Mahipal vs State Of Rajasthan
2026 Latest Caselaw 3502 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahipal vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 March, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:10752]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2460/2023
Mahipal S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village
Daylana Kallan, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, Through The Collector, Pali.
2.       Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Desuri, District Pali.
3.       The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Daylana Kallan, Tehsil
         Desuri, District Pali.
4.       Jogaram S/o Shri Nenaji, R/o Daylana Kallan, Tehsil
         Desuri, District Pali.
5.       Punaram S/o Shri Amraram Ji, R/o Daylana Kallan, Tehsil
         Desuri, District Pali.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Naresh Singh
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr, Kuldeep Singh Solanki on behalf
                                  of Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
                                  Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit
                                  Mr. Kunal Bishnoi.


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                        ORDER

Reserved on:- 25/02/2026 Pronounced on:- 07/03/2026

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner

challenging the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Collector,

Pali whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent

Nos.4 and 5 was allowed and the Patta No. 2079 dated

20.04.2018, issued in his favour in respect of an abadi plot

situated within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Daylana Kallan,

was cancelled.

2. Facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that the petitioner

was in old possession of an abadi plot situated within the

jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Daylana Kallan. In recognition of

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (2 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]

such possession, a residential patta was issued in his favour on

20.04.2018. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 54,556/-

towards the cost of the patta and a receipt dated 20.01.2018 was

issued in that regard. Subsequent to the issuance of the patta, the

petitioner raised construction over the said plot and is residing

therein. It is also stated that the premises has an electricity

connection. Photographs of the constructed house have been

placed on record.

3. The controversy arose when respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a

revision petition in the year 2022 under Section 97 of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 before the Collector, Pali,

seeking cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner.

Upon receipt of notice in the revision proceedings, the petitioner

submitted his written submissions before the Collector. The

Collector, Pali, vide order dated 29.11.2022, allowed the revision

petition and cancelled the patta granted to the petitioner. The said

order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. The record of case further shows that a factual report dated

25.05.2020 was submitted by the Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram

Panchayat Daylana Kallan, to the Vikas Adhikari pursuant to a

communication from the Office of the Collector, Pali. As per the

said report, the land was described as abadi land and it was stated

that pattas had been issued in accordance with the rules.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that

the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Collector, Pali is illegal,

arbitrary and has been passed without proper consideration of the

material available on record. It is submitted that a bare perusal of

the impugned order would show that the cancellation of the patta

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (3 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]

has been ordered merely on account of certain procedural or

clerical irregularities at the level of the Gram Panchayat office,

even if any such irregularity existed in processing the file, the

same cannot be attributed to the petitioner nor can he be made to

suffer for the same. It is contended that the factual report dated

25.05.2020 as well as the inquiry report dated 21.07.2020 clearly

indicate that the petitioner was in old possession of the abadi land

in question and that the patta was issued in accordance with the

applicable rules.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the patta was issued

taking into consideration the petitioner's long-standing possession

over the abadi plot. The existence of construction over the plot

and an electricity connection are stated to be indicative of such

possession. It is contended that there was no illegality in issuing

the patta on the basis of old possession, but this material aspect

was not adequately considered by the revisional authority. It

further submitted that the petitioner has raised construction over

the plot after issuance of the patta and has invested substantial

amounts therein. He is stated to be residing on the property with

his family. Cancellation of the patta at this stage, according to the

petitioner, would result in serious civil consequences and would

amount to deprivation of property, allegedly violating Articles 14

and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel contended that respondent Nos. 4 and 5

had no locus standi to prefer the revision petition under Section

97 of the Act. It is submitted that the revisional proceedings were

initiated at their instance without any legal right or interest being

shown in the subject land. He, thus, implored the Court to quash

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (4 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]

and set aside the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Collector,

Pali.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

supported the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Collector,

Pali and submitted that the Collector, while exercising revisional

powers under Section 97 of the Act of 1994, has acted within

jurisdiction and after due consideration of the factual and legal

aspects of the matter.

9. At the outset, it was submitted that the patta in question

was obtained by the petitioner, who is close relative of the

Sarpanch, without following the due procedure prescribed under

the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules framed

thereunder. It is contended that there is no material on record to

establish that the petitioner was in lawful and long-standing

possession of the land prior to issuance of the patta, nor is there

any cogent proof to demonstrate that construction existed in

accordance with law at the relevant time.

10. Learned counsel submits that Patta No. 2079 dated

20.04.2018 was issued in violation of the statutory provisions

governing allotment of abadi land. It is argued that the then office

bearers of the Gram Panchayat failed to complete the mandatory

legal formalities before issuing the patta and that valuable land

was allotted at a nominal price without adherence to the

prescribed procedure. Such an allotment, it is contended, being de

hors the Rules of 1996, is void and unsustainable in the eye of

law.

11. It is also contended that once the very foundation of the

patta is contrary to statutory provisions, the petitioner cannot

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (5 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]

claim any vested right on the basis of such allotment. The plea

based on investment or alleged residence on the land, according

to the State, does not validate an allotment which is otherwise

illegal. Thus, it was prayed that no interference under writ

jurisdiction of this Court is warranted in the present case.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

abailable on record.

13. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.11.2022 is

reproduced below for ready reference:-

"cgl mHk;i{k lquh tkdj ml ij xgu euu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostksa dk xgurk ls v/;;u fd;k ,oa odhy izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fyf[kr cgl ds layXu fodkl vf/kdkjh dh tk¡p fjiksVZ esa of.kZrkuqlkj ljiap ds Hkkb;ksa] HkkbZ ds iq=] iRuh o ljiap dh ekrk ds uke iV~Vs tkjh gksuk crk;k gS ftlesa ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa dks Qk;nk ig¡qpkus dh fu;r ls fcuk fof/kd izfØ;k viuk;s iV~Vk tkjh fd;k x;k gS] ds laca/k esa fcUnq fuEu gS & 1- tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vk fu;e 157¼1½ ds rgr iqjkus edkuksa dk fofu;ferhdj.k ds rgr fn;k x;k gS tcfd ekSds ij [kkyh Hkw&[k.M gSSA 2- iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e 1996 ds fu;e 47 ^^cSBd ds fopkjk/khu fo"k; esa tc fdlh lnL; dk /kuh; fgr fufgr gks** dk rRdkyhu ljiap }kjk Li"V mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA 3- tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vk tkjh djus esa xaHkhj izfØ;kRed dfe;ka j[kh xbZ gSA fcUnq la[;k 01 ds lanHkZ esa ;g gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk fcuk fnukafdr vkosnu fu;e 157¼1½ esa dCts dk fofu;ferhdj.k dj iV~Vk tkjh djus dk vkosnu fd;k gS] ftlds laca/k esa iwoZ Vafdr dk;kZy; fVIi.kh ftl ij nks i`Fkd&i`Fkd fnukad dk vadu dj pykbZ xbZ gS ftlesa fu;e 145¼d½ ds vUrxZr Hkwfe ds foØ; ds :i esa iV~Vk tkjh djus ckcr~ Vafdr dh gqbZ gSA ftlls izFke&n`"V~;k ;g Li"V gksrk gS izkFkhZ dk vkosnu o fu/kkZfjr fely dh vknsf"kdkvksa esa fojks/kkHkkl gS tks fd tSj fuxjkuh Hkw&[k.M vkoaVu dh izfØ;k ij la'k; mRiUu djrk gSA fcUnq la[;k 02 ds lanHkZ esa ;g gS fd cgl ds nkSjku vizkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk us vizkFkhZ ,oa rRdkyhu ljiap ds fudV fj"rs dks Lohdkj fd;k gSaA blls ;g Li"V gksrk gs fd rRdkyhu ljiap }kjk fudV laca/kh dks tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vk tkjh fd;k gS rFkk mDr rF; dksje dh tkudkjh esa yk;k x;k gks ,slk dksbZ lk{; vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls rRdkyhu ljiap dk mDr iV~Vk tkjh djus esa Conflict of Interest vFkkZr~

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (6 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]

v/;{k@lnL; dk fu.kZ; mldh :fp ls izHkkfor gksuk izFke n`"V~;k izekf.kr gksrk gSA fcUnq la[;k 03 ds lanHkZ esa ;g gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostksa ls Li'V gksrk gS fd tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vk tkjh djus esa xaHkhj izfØ;kRed dfe;ka j[kh xbZ gS fd iV~Vk tkjh djus esa nqHkkZoukiw.kZ vuf;ferrk dh vksj bafxr djrh gSA izfØ;kRed dfe;ksa ds laca/k esa ;g gS fd tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vs ckcr~ vizkFkhZ }kjk vkosnu fu;e 157¼1½ ds rgr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk xzke iapk;r }kjk vknsf'kdk,a fu;e 145¼d½ ds lkFk izFke vknsf"kdk ij nks i`Fkd&i`Fkd fnukad vafdr dh tkrh gS tcfd izkFkhZ ds vkosnu ij dksbZ fnukad vafdr ugha gS rFkk fely dh leLr vknsf"kdk,a iwoZ Vafdr ,oa viw.kZ gSA fely esa xzke iapk;r }kjk xfBr lfefr }kjk izLrqr fujh{k.k izi= Hkh viw.kZ] vfnukafdr ,oa iwoZ Vafdr gS rFkk iV~Vk tkjh djus dh izfØ;k esa fu;e 145 ls fu;e 155 dh ikyuk Hkh ugha dh xbZ gS ¼tSj fuxjkuh Hkw&[k.M uhykeh ls foØ; gS blfy, fu;e 145 ls fu;e 155 dh ikyuk vko';d gS½ lkFk gh vkifÙk bf"rgkj ckcr~ uksfVl ,d ekg dh vof/k dk gksuk pkfg, Fkk tcfd dsoy 07 fnol dk gh uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k ,oa tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vs dh uhykeh esa izkIr jkf"k v{kjs 50]000@& :i;s ls vf/kd gksus ds ckotwn Hkh fu;e 154¼3½d ds vuq:i l{ke vf/kdjh ls vuqeksnu dk vHkko gSA vr% fcUnq vizkFkhZ ds fo:) r; fd;k tkrk gSA vr% tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vk tkjh djus esa izFke&n`'V~;k xaHkhj vfu;ferrk ,oa folaxfr;ka izekf.kr gksrh gSA mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij rhuksa fcUnq izekf.kr ik;s tkus ls vizkFkhZ ds fo:) r; fd;s tkrs gS blfy, fely la[;k 127@30-11-2017 esa ikfjr vkns"k fnukad 20-04-2018 ,oa mldh ikyuk esa tkjh iV~Vk la[;k 2079 fnukad 20-04-2018 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS lkFk gh tSj fuxjkuh izdj.k esa rRdkyhu xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh ,oa vU; lacaf/kr ds Lrj ij xaHkhj ykijokgh o vfu;ferrk ikbZ tkrh gSA vr% eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] ftyk ifj'kn] ikyh dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd rRdkyhu xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh ,oa vU; lacaf/kr ds fo:) 15 fnol esa lh- lh-,- fu;e@lqlaxr fu;eksa esa dk;Zokgh djrs gq, tSj vkjkth dk dCtk xzke iapk;r dks lqiqnZ fd;k tkosA"

14. Having considered the submissions advanced at bar and

perusal of the record of the case, this Court prima facie finds that

the patta in question was issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram

Panchayat to his close relative i.e. the petitioner without

adherence to the procedural requirements under the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and the rules framed thereunder. The

allotment was allegedly made at a nominal price, and the

mandatory formalities prescribed under Rule 145 to 155 of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules were not completed before

issuance. It is a settled principle that an allotment or patta

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (7 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]

granted in contravention of statutory provisions is void ab initio

and does not confer any vested right, irrespective of subsequent

possession or development on the land.

15. Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act empowers

the Collector to examine the legality and propriety of pattas issued

by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, acting as a revisional

authority, has the power to correct errors, irregularities, or

illegality in such issuance. In the present case, the Collector's

order cancelling the patta falls squarely within the scope of such

powers.

16. The petitioner has relied upon alleged old possession,

construction, and existence of an electricity connection to support

his claim. Even assuming possession existed, possession alone

cannot legalize an allotment issued in violation of statutory

provisions. It is a settled legal position that a party cannot derive

a right from possession or investment when the foundational

allotment itself is unlawful. Any hardship claimed by the petitioner

cannot override the clear statutory mandate.

17. Resultantly, this Court does not finds any error of law,

illegality, or violation of constitutional rights in the order dated

29.11.2022 passed by the Collector, Pali, warranting interference

by this Court. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

any merits.

18. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

-Divya/-

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)