Mahipal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3833 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahipal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:11979-DB]



         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
                D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 327/2026

Mahipal S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village
Daylana Kallan, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.
                                                    ----Appellant
                               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 Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Jai Kishan Rankawat
    For Respondent(s)             :    Dr. Sachin Acharya, Senior Advocate
                                       assisted by Mr. Kunal Bishnoi
                                       Mr. Dinesh
                                       Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit

                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order(Oral) Reportable 13/03/2026

Per: Arun Monga, J

1. Instant inter court DB Appeal arises out of the final order and

judgment dated 07.03.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in

Mahipal v/s State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1, whereby the writ

petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and the learned

Single Judge declined to interfere with the order dated 29.11.2022

passed by the District Collector, Pali, cancelling a lease deed

issued earlier in favour of the appellant.

2. The appellant claiming to be in possession of an abadi plot, got

a residential patta came issued in his favour by the Gram

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 04:36:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11979-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-327/2026]

Panchayat on 20.04.2018. The appellant deposited a sum of

Rs.54,556/- towards the cost of the patta in accordance with the

applicable DLC rates vide receipt dated 20.01.2018. It is further

asserted that subsequent to the issuance of the patta, the

appellant raised construction over the said plot and also obtained

an electricity connection at the premises.

2.1 Thereafter, private respondents No.4 and 5 preferred a

revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

Act before the learned Collector, Pali, seeking cancellation of the

patta issued in favour of the appellant. Upon being served with

notice, the appellant submitted his reply contesting the revision.

However, after considering the matter, the learned Collector, Pali,

vide order dated 29.11.2022, allowed the revision petition and

cancelled the patta granted in favour of the appellant.

2.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the

learned Collector, the appellant approached this Court by filing

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2460/2023. The said writ petition,

however, came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide

order dated 07.03.2026, against which the present appeal has

been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that learned

Single Judge and so also revisional authority ignored reports

submitted by the Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Daylana

Kallan dated 25.05.2020, and by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat

Samiti Desuri dated 21.07.2020, which were placed on record.

The said reports indicate that the land in question formed part of

the abadi area and that the appellant's family was stated to be in

possession of the land since ancestral times. The reports also

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 04:36:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11979-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-327/2026]

mentioned that pattas had been issued in accordance with the

applicable rules and that several other residents of the locality had

similarly been granted pattas by the Gram Panchayat. Hence the

appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned orders.

4. In the aforesaid background, we have heard the rival

submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties and have carefully perused the material

available on record.

5. At the outset, reference may first be had to the order dated

29.11.2022 passed by the learned revisional authority. The

inspection report of the Development Officer reveals that lease

deeds had been issued in favour of the Sarpanch's close relatives,

i.e., his brothers, nephews, wife and mother, that too, without

following the prescribed legal procedure, indicating an attempt to

extend undue benefit to family members.

5.1. Three major irregularities were noted:

a). Firstly, the lease deed was issued under Rule 157(1)

meant for regularization of old houses, whereas the

land in question was in fact a vacant plot;

b). Secondly, the then Sarpanch violated Rule 47 of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act by participating in a

decision in which he had a direct personal interest, as

the allotment was made to his relative;

c). Thirdly, several serious procedural lapses were found,

including an undated application under Rule 157(1),

contradictory office notes containing multiple dates,

incomplete and pre-typed miscellaneous orders,

undated inspection forms, and non-compliance with

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 04:36:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11979-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-327/2026]

Rules 145 to 155 governing allotment. The objection

notice period was reduced to 7 days instead of the

mandatory 30 days, and although the lease amount

exceeded ₹50,000, approval from the competent

authority under Rule 154(3)(k) was not obtained.

5.2. In view of these grave irregularities, the revisional authority,

and in our opinion also, rightly so, held that the issuance of the

lease deed was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the order

dated 20.04.2018 and the lease deed issued pursuant thereto

were cancelled, and the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali

was directed to initiate action against the concerned officials and

restore possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat.

6. Aside above, the existence of the familial relationship with

sarpanch establishes a clear conflict of interest.

7. In fact, in light of the findings recorded by the revisional

authority, a specific query was posed to the learned counsel for

the appellant as to whether the relationship between the appellant

and the then Sarpanch, as noted in the impugned order, was

correct. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the

existence of such familial relationship.

8. Once this crucial aspect stands admitted, the entire edifice of

the appellant's case collapses. The material on record

unmistakably indicates that the patta in question was issued to a

close relative of the then Sarpanch in blatant disregard of the

statutory procedure. Such an act, viewed in its proper perspective,

bears the unmistakable imprint of nepotism and favouritism,

where public authority was misused to extend undue benefit to a

family member at the cost of transparency and fairness in the

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 04:36:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11979-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-327/2026]

administration of public land. This circumstance alone is sufficient

to dissuade this Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction

in favour of the appellant.

9. We also find ourselves in respectful agreement with the well-

reasoned conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge while

dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The relevant

portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:

"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."

10. We are satisfied that the patta in question was issued in clear

violation of the statutory provisions governing allotment of Gram

Panchayat land and was rightly cancelled by the revisional

authority. The learned Single Judge has committed no error in

declining interference with the said order.

11. As an upshot, the instant appeal is bereft of merit and is

accordingly dismissed.

12. Any pending application(s) also stands disposed of.

                                   (SUNIL BENIWAL),J                                              (ARUN MONGA),J
                                   193-KP Singh Dewasi/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 04:36:42 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)