[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs. Of Dana Ji vs Addl. District Collector, Jalore And ... on 17 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:12755]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11564/2016
1. Lrs. Of Sh Dana Ji S/o Late Sh. Savdan Ji
1/1 Hansa Ram S/o Late Sh. Danaji, aged 70 years.
1/2. Thanaram S/o Late Sh. Danaji, aged 67 years.
1/3. Jaisaram S/o Late Sh. Danaji, aged 55 years.
1/4. Hemraj S/o Late Sh. Danaji, aged 48 years.
All the petitioners from 1/1 to 1/4 are R/o Baadanvadi, Tehsil
Ahore, District Jalore (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Additional District Collector, Jalore
2. Lrs. Of Sh Ganesha S/o. Late Sh. Sava Ji
2/1. Nathu Singh S/o Late Sh. Ganesha Ji, R/o Baadanvadi,
Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore
2/2. Popat Singh S/o Late Ganesha Ji, R/o Baadanvadi, Tehsil
Ahore, District Jalore
3. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Baadawadi, Panchayat Samiti and
Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Chittora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit for
Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
17/03/2026
1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that the present
petition may kindly be allowed and. Further, by appropriate
writ, order or direction
(i) The revision petition filed by the petitioners may kindly
be allowed and also demolish the already constructed
structures over the disputed property.
(ii) The impugned order dated 21.09.2016 (Annex.1) may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Patta bearing No. 15 dated 19.05.1976 may kindly
be be cancelled and declared as illegal.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 05:36:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12755] (2 of 3) [CW-11564/2016]
(iv) Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just
and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.
(v) Costs may kindly be also awarded."
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned
order dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure-01) passed by the Additional
District Collector, Jalore.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the material available on record, this Court prima facie
finds that the learned revisional authority has dismissed the
revision petition on the ground of delay and laches. The patta is
stated to have been issued in the year 1976, whereas the revision
petition was filed only in the year 2016. The delay of about four
decades is significant and has rightly been treated as fatal. The
explanation given by the petitioners that they acquired knowledge
in the year 2016 has not been found sufficient to explain such an
inordinate delay.
4. This Court also takes note of the fact that the private
respondents belong to a below poverty line category and are
stated to be in possession of the land. In such circumstances,
entertaining a belated challenge after several decades would not
be justified. This Court is of the opinion that the learned revisional
authority has rightly declined to entertain a highly belated
challenge. It is well settled that stale claims should not be
entertained, particularly when rights may have accrued over a
long period.
5. As regards the contention relating to non-availability of
record with the Gram Panchayat, this Court is of the view that
mere absence of record, by itself, cannot lead to a presumption
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 05:36:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12755] (3 of 3) [CW-11564/2016]
that no Patta was ever issued, particularly when the respondents
claim long-standing possession on the basis thereof.
6. Further, the dispute with regard to construction being raised
over a public way or over a private patta-sud land, has rightly
being decided by the revisional authority as the private
respondents, who belong to below poverty line category, were
provided construction grant to raise construction over the disputed
piece of land under the Indra Awas Yojna after due approval from
the concerned Gram Panchayat.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the revisional
authority has passed a reasoned order taking into consideration
the relevant aspects, including delay, absence of essential
documents, and the nature of dispute. No perversity, jurisdictional
error or manifest illegality is demonstrated in the order dated
21.09.2016. The findings recorded by the learned Additional
District Collector are based on proper appreciation of the material
available on record and do not call for interference by this Court in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the
present writ petition. The impugned order dated 21.09.2016
passed by the learned Additional District Collector, Jalore is
upheld. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
9. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
10. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
92-Divya/-
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 05:36:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
