Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mallu Khan @ Kallu Khan vs Additional District Collector & Ors on 3 October, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13764 / 2017
Mallu Khan @ Kallu Khan, S/o Sh. Mangtu Khan, by Caste Teli, R/o
Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Additional District Collector, Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur.
2. Sitaram S/o Ganpat, by Caste Kir
3. Rohitash S/o Sh. Surajmal
4. Suresh S/o Sh. Surajmal,
All by Caste Kir, R/o Village Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Judgment 03/10/2017 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 25.5.2017 passed by the Addl. District Collector, Kotputli (hereafter Addl. Collector) holding that albeit the appeal laid before him was not maintainable, it was being treated as revision which could be heard by him under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereafter Act of 1994). Yet on doing so, the Addl. Collector held that the case of the petitioner that respondents had been issued a patta over a road was not made out for reasons of even dimensions of road in issue having not been set out nor any site plan or demarcation thereof been brought on record by way of evidence. Besides, the Addl. Collector noted, the case of the petitioner contrarily was that he (2 of 3) [CW-13764/2017] used the purported road for tying his animals and for his public functions such as marriages and post death ceremonies. The Addl. Collector also found from material before him that prior to the issue of pattas impugned, the Gram Panchayat was not put to any objections by any objectors. Besides, even the Gram Panchayat, which issued patta to the private respondents had not been impleaded as a party. And finally a suit for injunction at the instance of the petitioner in respect of the very same patta in which the private respondents and the Gram Panchayat were arrayed as defendants was pending before the Civil Court and the rights of the parties would be adequately determined therein, following a regular trial therein.
The impugned order passed by the Addl. Collector is well considered and based on the absolute consideration of the evidence before him. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of interference therewith on any plausible ground.
I am thus not inclined to exercise the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereagainst. There is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order as it suffers neither from perversity nor patent illegality. Besides, the rights of the parties in respect of disputed purported road, over which a patta has been allegedly issued to the respondents, would be determined in the suit for injunction admittedly laid by the petitioner.
(3 of 3) [CW-13764/2017] I find no force in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA) J.
Dk