Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Issack Khan vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 2 August, 2017
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9128 / 2017
Issack Khan S/o Sh. Noore Khan, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste
Mussalman, Resident of Ishaniyo Ki Basti, Kucheri, Tehsil and
District Jaiselmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Additional District Collector,
Jaisalmer (Raj.)
2. Salak Khan S/o Sh. Hot Khan, By Caste Mussalman, Resident of
Kucheri, Tehsil and District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
3. Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd., Office At Hotel Shiv Sagat, Gandhi
Colony Road, Jaiselmer (Raj.).
4. Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd., Ist Floor, Anand Bhawan, S.C. Road,
Jaipur (Raj.).l
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sam, Tehsil and District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
6. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Punamnagar, Panchayat Samiti
Sam, Tehsil and District Jaiselmer (Raj.)
7. Gram Sewak and Paden Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Habur,
Presently Punamnagar, Tehsil and District Jaiselmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr T.S.Champawat
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 02/08/2017 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the Additional District Collector, Jaisalmer (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in revision petition No.1/2017 filed by respondent No.2 Salak Khan, whereby (2 of 10) [CW-9128/2017] the revisional court has cancelled the patta dated 17.09.2007 issued in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat, Habur, Panchayat Samiti Sam, District Jaisalmer.
Assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the revisional court has grossly erred in entertaining the revision petition filed on behalf of the respondent - Salak Khan after a delay of 10 years. It is contended that along with the revision petition, no application for condonation of delay was filed by the respondent - Salak Khan, however, the revisional court while relying on the decision of this Court dated 26.02.2015 rendered in SBCWP No.3696/2008, Luni Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. has treated the revision petition within limitation though, the said decision is not at all applicable on the facts of the present case.
It is further argued that the findings of the revisional court to the effect that before issuance of the patta in favour of the petitioner on 17.09.2007, the Gram Panchayat did not follow the procedure laid down under Chapter-IX of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996' hereinafter) are perverse because the Gram Panchayat, before issuance of the patta, had followed the procedure laid down under the Rules of 1996.
It is further contended that as per the Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996, there is no requirement that a patta can only be issued for an old house only and the patta can also be issued for a long possession on a vacant land. It is further argued that the revisional court has altogether ignored the settled position of law (3 of 10) [CW-9128/2017] that if a patta issued by Gram Panchayat is registered as per the provisions of the Registration Act, the same cannot be cancelled while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
It is also contended that the Gram Panchayat has issued the pattas in favour of as many as 15 persons including the petitioner at the same time, however, the revisional court without questioning the validity of other 14 pattas has cancelled the patta of the petitioner and as such the action of the revisional court in cancelling the patta of the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned order passed by the revisional court.
The finding of the revisional court in respect of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner is as follows:
"vc izdj.k esa vizkFkhZ la- 1 ds i{k esa tkjh iÍs dk jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e 1996 ds fu;e 157 ds rgr ijh{k.k djus ij Li"V gS fd ;g iÍk fu;e 157 ¼2½ ds rgr tkjh fd;k gqvk ugha gS D;ksafd ;g mifu;e ,d fo'ks"k izko/kku gS ftlesa efgyk ds uke ls vf/kdre 300 oxZ xt dk fu;eu djus dk izko/kku gSA gkaykfd vizkFkhZ ds xzke iapk;r ds le{k izLrqr vkosnu esa fu;e 157 ds rgr iqjkus x`g ds fu;fefrdj.k djus dh ekax dk dksbZ gokyk ugha gS fu;e 157 ¼1½ ds rgr fu/kkZfjr jkf'k tek djkus dk izek.k Hkh vkosnu ds lkFk layXu ugha FkkA vizkFkhZ la- 2 o 3 tks fd VsyhdkWe dEiuh gS ,oa tks fd bl rFkkdfFkr iÍs dh Hkwfe dks VkWoj gsrq yht ij ysuk crkrh gS us ;g vo'; vafdr fd;k gS fd ;g iÍk (4 of 10) [CW-9128/2017] fu;e 157 ds rgr tkjh fd;k gS ijUrq mldk otZu vizkFkhZ la- 1 dk otZu ekuk tkuk mfpr ugha gSA vizkFkhZ la- 1 ds i{k esa tkjh ;g iÍk fu;e 157 ds rgr fofgr izfØ;k esa Hkh tkjh fd;k gqvk ugha gS bl ij xzke lsod ,oa lfpo xzke iapk;r ds dgha ij gLrk{kj ugha gS iapk;r lfpo ds gLrk{kj gksuk vkKkid #i ls izkfof/kr gSA ;fn fu;e 157 ¼1½ dks ns[ksa rks ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd jktLFkku iapk;r jkt fu;e 1996 ds ykxw gksus ls Bhd 50 o"kZ iwoZ dh vof/k esa fufeZr LFkkuksa dk fu;eu gsrq 'kqYd 200@& #i;s gS ,oa 50 o"kZ ls vf/kd iwoZ ls fufeZr edkuksa gsrq 'kqYd 100@& #i;s fu/kkZfjr gSA blls ;g Li"V gS fd iÍk fu;e 157 ¼1½ ¼d½ ds rgr tkjh fd;k tk jgk gS ;k iÍk 157 ¼1½ ¼[k½ ds rgr bl ckcr fofu'p; vko';d gSA iapk;r dh dk;Zokgh esa fofu;fefrdj.k ds iz;kstukFkZ edku fuekZ.k dh vof/k dk dksbZ fofu'p; ugha gS u gh vkosnd us vius vkosnu i= esa edku fuekZ.k dc fd;k ,oa dc ls fdrus o"kksZa ls edku fufeZr gksdj vfLrRo esa gS] dk dksbZ vadu vius vkosnu esa fd;k gSA xzke iapk;r us Hkh Hkwfe foØ; gsrq vukifr tkjh dh gSA iapk;r dh ;g dk;Zokgh fu;e 157 dh ea'kk iw.kZ djus gsrq dh xbZ ugha gSA blesa edku dc ls vfLrRo esa blds ckcr dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha gSA oLrqr% vizkFkhZ la- 1 dk dksbZ iqjkuk edku gS bldk Hkh dksbZ mYys[k iapk;r dh i=koyh vFkok i=koyh esa lyaXu ekSdk fjiksVZ esa ugha gSA xzke iapk;r us mfpr tkap ugha dhA edku cukdj dCts dh vof/k dh tkap ugha dh xbZ gSA iapk;r dh i=koyh ;k izLrko fnukad 15-07-2007 esa bldk dksbZ gokyk ugha gS tcfd bl izdkj dh tkap djuk iapk;r ,DV ds rgr vkKkid gSA bl lanHkZ esa izLrqr fof/k n`"VkUr 2013 ¼3½ RLW 2753 (Raj) ukxjey cuke vfrfjDr dyDVj lhdj o vU; esa ;g Li"V :i ls (5 of 10) [CW-9128/2017] fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd izdj.k esa xzke iapk;r us Hkwfe ij edkuksa dh vof/k ugha n'kkZbZA vkosnu ds lkFk 157 ¼1½ ds rgr okafNr vko';d 'kqYd layXu ugha fd;kA iapk;r }kjk leqfpr tkap ugha dh xbZA fu;e 157 lqLFkkfir dCts dks ekU;rk nsus gsrq ,d viokfnd izfØ;k gS u fd vfrØe.k dks izksRlkgu nsus gsrqA bl gsrq dMh (Airtight) tkap gksuh pkfg;s ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr ;g fof/k n`"VkUr bl izdj.k ij Hkh pLik gksrk gSA bldk vk/kkj ekuus ls Li"V :i ls ;g iÍk fu;e 157 ¼1½ ds rgr iqjkus x`g ds fofu;fefrdj.k esa ugha eku ldrs gSaA blh lanHkZ esa ;g rF; Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd o"kZ 1996 esa vizkFkhZ la- 1 dh mez 14&15 o"kZ dh FkhA blds izek.k Lo:i lSds.Mjh Ldwy izek.k&i= izLrqr gqvk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ la- 1 dk o"kZ 1996 ls iwoZ iqjkus x`g cukdj vkokl djus dk rF; mfpr ugha gSA o"kZ 2007 esa vkosnd ds ckfyd gksus ek= ls mldk izdj.k fu;e 157 ¼1½ esa doj ugha gks tkrk gSA ;fn mlds firk dk iqjkuk x`g Hkh ekurs gSa rks Hkh vizkFkhZ la- 1 ;g Lo;a Lohdkj djrk gS fd mlds firk ds edku ds ikl mls ;g iÍk tkjh fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g fu"d"kZ fy;k tkuk pkfg, fd vizkFkhZ ds firk dk fuokl o edku o"kZ 1996 ls iwoZ ikl dh vU; Hkwfe ij gSA bl vk/kkj ij Hkh bl fookfnr Hkwfe ij vizkFkhZ iqjkus x`g ds fofu;fefrdj.k ds vk/kkj ij iÍs dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA bl rFkkdfFkr iÍs ds ,d lkbZM esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds firk dk edku n'kkZ;k gSA mlh ifjokj ds lnL; dks nwljk iÍk fu;e 157 ¼1½ ds rgr tkjh djuk mfpr ugha dgk tk ldrk gS tc rd fd mldk edku cukdj 1996 ls iwoZ dk LorU= dCtk u gksA bl izdkj fu;e 157 ds rgr fofgr izfØ;k dk Hkh iapk;r us bl rFkkdfFkr iÍs dks (6 of 10) [CW-9128/2017] tkjh djus esa ikyu ughas fd;k gSA fu;e 157 gsrq fofgr izi= esa iÍk foys[k tkjh ugha fd;k gS vizkFkhZ uEcj 1 us ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr gks lds fd og o"kZ 1996 ls iwoZ edku cukdj fookfnr Hkwfe ij x`g ds :i esa dCtk FkkA ekSds ij orZeku esa VkWoj yxkus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gSA blls Li"V gS fd [kkyh Hkw&[k.M ij ;g dk;Zokgh gks jgh gSA vizkFkhZ dk jgoklh vkckn edku bl Hkwfe ij ugha gSA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ ds i{k esa tkjh ;g iÍk foys[k fu;e 157 dh fof/kd izfØ;k ikyu dj tkjh fd;k gqvk ugha gSA bl izdkj mij foospu ls Li"V gS fd xzke iapk;r }kjk tkjh ;g iÍk foys[k jktLFkku iaŒ jktŒ vf/kŒ 1994 o jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e 1996 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlj.k esa tkjh fd;k gqvk ugha gSA vr% bls oS/kkfud ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd bl fuxjkuh esa izkFkhZ i{k us 22-04-1985 dks iÍk tkjh gksus dk gokyk fn;k gS ftlds lanHkZ esa vizkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd izHkkjh iqfyl pkSdh }kjk izkFkhZ ds bl rFkkdfFkr iÍs ckcr tkap djus dk fy[kus ij iapk;r }kjk fnukad 17-03-2017 ds tokc fy[kk fd iapk;r fjdkMZ vuqlkj lkyd [kka iq= gksr [kka izkFkhZ ds uke dk vfHkys[k iapk;r ds ikl miyC/k ugha gS bl dkj.k lkyd [kka izkFkhZ ds fo:) QthZ o dwVjfpr iÍk cukus dk eqdnek ntZ djus dk vkns'k fnyok dj U;k; fnykosaA bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; mfpr le>rk gS bl rFkkdfFkr iÍs fnukad 22-04-1985 ds lanHkZ esa fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk;r lfefr le bl laca/k esa iw.kZ tkap djs o visf{kr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh vey esa ykosaA mij fd;s x;s foospu dks ensutj bl U;k;ky; ds fouez er ds vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 Jh b'kkd[kka iq= uwjs [kka fuoklh bZ'kkfu;ksa dh cLrh] dqNMh] rglhy (7 of 10) [CW-9128/2017] tSlyesj ds i{k esa tkjh iÍk foys[k fnukad 17-09- 2007 xzke iapk;r gkcqj us jktŒ iapk;r ,DV 1994 o blds rgr tkjh jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt vf/kfu;e 1996 ds rgr fof/kor tkjh ugha fd;k gS ,oa rnuqlkj ;g iÍk foys[k fnukad 17-09-2007 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa blls lacaf/kr xzke iapk;r gkcqj dh dk;Zokgh] tgka rd iÍk foys[k fnukad 17- 09-2007 ls lacaf/kr gS] ,rn }kjk fujLr dh tkrh gS ,oa i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy vfHkys[kkxkj esa tek gksA v/khuLFk xzke iapk;r dk vfHkys[k okfil ykSVk;k tk;sA fu.kZ; dh ,d&,d izfr fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk;r lfefr le o xzke iapk;r gkcqj gky iwueuxj dks ikyukFkZ Hksth x;hA fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 28-06-2017 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;k ,oa bls esjs gLrk{kj ,oa U;k;ky; dh eqnzk ls vf/kizekf.kr fd;k x;kA"
From the said findings of the revisional court, it is clear that before passing the impugned order, the revisional court has carefully scrutinized the record of the case and found that the Gram Panchayat has not followed the procedure as laid down under the Rules of 1996 while issuing the patta in question in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to counter the findings of the revisional court regarding the fact that in the year 2007, the age of the petitioner was in between 14 to 15 years only. If the said fact is uncontroverted, then certainly it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the findings given by the revisional court that a minor boy of 14-15 years cannot have old possession over any land.
It is also to be noticed that as per the Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996, the Panchayat can regularize the possession of an (8 of 10) [CW-9128/2017] old house in Abadi land, however, it is own admission of the petitioner that no old house was situated on the plot and it is not in dispute that the said plot is situated adjacent to the house of the father of the petitioner.
In the opinion of the Court that there is no error in the finding arrived at by the revisional court that when the house of the father is situated on the adjacent land to the disputed land, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation of the disputed land when the old possession of him on the said land is not proved.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that since after the issuance of the said patta the same has been registered with the competent authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, the patta in question cannot be cancelled, is also bereft of any merit in view of the decision of a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Mithoo Shahani & Ors. vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1536, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"(9) The next point that was urged was that the appellant had been granted sanads on January 12, 1956 and that their sanads could not be cancelled and the title acquired thereunder displaced except in accordance with the terms of the sanads The term of the sanad which is relevant and which was referred to as the sole ground on which it could be set aside and the title of the appellants displaced reads:
"It shall be lawful for the President to resume the whole or any part of the said property if the Central Government is, at any time, satisfied and records a decision in writing to that effect (the decision of the Central Government in this behalf 110 being final) that the transferee or his predecessor in-interest had obtained or obtains any other compensation in any form whatsoever (9 of 10) [CW-9128/2017] under the said Act by fraud or misrepresentation."
It is not disputed that this condition has not been fulfilled but the question, however, is whether when the order of allotment on the basis of which the property was granted to the appellant and the sanad issued, is itself reversed or set aside can the sanad and the title obtained thereunder survive? On this point there are two decisions to which our attention was invited-the first is a decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Partumal v. Managing Officer, Jaipur, ILR (1961) 11 Raj. 1121 :
(AIR1962 Raj 112 (FB) being a decision of a Full Bench of that Court. That case was concerned with the construction of s. 24 of the Act which deals with the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise orders passed by a Settlement Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer, Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Additional Settlement Commissioner etc. The relevant part of the head-note brings out the point of the decision. It reads:
"Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, no doubt confers very wide powers of revision on the Chief Settlement Commissioner, but it does not authorise cancellation of sales after they are completed. No doubt, allotments can be set aside under s. 24 of the Act, but after such allotments ripen into sales, they cannot be cancelled. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, but it does not authosioner exercising his power has no authority to cancel sale of property and an order of cancellation of sale of property is without jurisdiction and invalid. It would be too much to read in s. 24 of the Act to hold that it extends to cancellation of sales by expressly providing for cancellation of allotments. The execution of a sale deed cannot be regarded as only a formal expression of an order of allotment dependent on its subsistence."
Subsequent to this decision a case arose before the High Court of Punjab: Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands). ILR (1964) 1 Punj 36: (AIR 1964 Punj 33) and a Full Bench of that Court by a majority dissented from this view and held that where an order making an allotment was set aside the title which was obtained on the basis of the continuance of that order also fell with it. We are clearly of the opinion that the judgment of the Punjab High Court is correct. The relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules have (10 of 10) [CW-9128/2017] all been set out in the decision of the Punjab High Court and we do not consider it necessary to refer to them in any detail. It is sufficient to say that they do not contain any provision which militates against the position which is consistent with principle and logic. It is manifest that a sanad can be lawfully issued only on the basis of a valid order of allotment. If an order of allotment which is the basis upon which a grant is made is set aside it would follow, and the conclusion is inescapable that the grant cannot survive, because in order that that grant should be valid it should have been effected by a competent officer under a valid order."
In view of the position of law as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the patta issued in favour of the petitioner suffers from any defect, then even if the same is registered before the competent authority under the Registration Act, it will not come in the way of cancellation of the said patta.
In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J. m.asif/PS