Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manohar Lal vs District Collector, Barmer & Ors on 14 September, 2011
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
35
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8189/2009.
Manohar Lal
Vs.
The District Collector, Barmer & Ors.
....
Date of Order :: 14th September 2011.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioner.
<<>>
BY THE COURT:
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the order dated 12.03.2008 (Annex. 9) whereby the learned Collector has dismissed the revision petition (No. 3/2006) as filed by the petitioner challenging the patta granted to the respondent No. 3 and the order dated 25.02.2009 (Annex.14) whereby the learned Collector, Barmer has dismissed the review application (No. 15/2008) finding no case for review of the order dated 12.03.2008.
In the impugned orders, the learned Collector found that the questioned patta had regularly been issued on 19.01.1999 after due proceedings as required by the rules; and was registered on 12.05.1999. The learned Collector found no reason to order cancellation of the patta granted on the basis of old possession of the respondent No. 3.
The petitioner seeks to submit in this writ petition that the Gram Panchayat had issued the patta to the respondent 2 No. 3 ignoring the earlier patta existing in favour of the grand- father of the petitioner and further that while issuing the questioned patta, the Gram Panchayat has proceeded to alienate a part of the land of way. It is also submitted that the learned Collector has ignored the relevant documents and has further failed to consider that the grant of patta was not in accordance with law. The submissions do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction.
From the observations as made by the learned Collector, it is found that the Collector has recorded his satisfaction after perusing the record of Panchayat that all the necessary proceedings were carried out, including issuance of the notice; and the patta was issued after no objection having been received. The late attempt on the part of the petitioner to question the patta so granted in the year 1999 by way of revision petition in the year 2006 by raising the dispute of facts, when not accepted by the Collector concerned after due consideration of the record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction with reference to the several questions of facts sought to be raised by the petitioner.
The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/