Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dashmi Das & Ors vs Addl. Dist. Collector, Nohar & Ors on 9 February, 2017
Bench: Govind Mathur, G.R. Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 888 / 2015
1. Dashmi Das S/o Ram Singh, by caste Chamar, aged about 45
years, resident of Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
2. Satya Pal S/o Shri Sohan Lal, by caste Mahajan, aged about 52
years, resident of Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
3. LRs of Rampat S/o Shri Harphool, by caste Nai, resident of
Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh :-
3/1. Tejpal S/o late Shri Rampat, Age 40 years
3/2. Jagpal S/o late Shri Rampat, Age 38 years
3/3. Jaswant S/o late Shri Rampat, Age 36 years
by caste Nai, resident of Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh
----Appellants
Versus
1. Addl. District Collector, Nohar, District Hanumangarh
2. Gram Panchayat, Jogiwala, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, Tehsil
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
Jogiwala
3. Leelu Ram @ Leela Ram s/o Shri Hajari Ram, by caste Dhanak,
resident of Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
4. Rajesh S/o Shri Munshi Ram, by caste Gusai, resident of
Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
Proforma Respondents :
5. LR's of Rampat S/o Harphool, by caste Nai, resident of
Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh :-
(2 of 4)
[SAW-888/2015]
5/1. Smt. Sulochna W/o Shri Telu Ram D/o late Shri
Rampat, resident of Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh
5/2. Smt. Vimla W/o Shri Ramphal D/o late Shri Rampat,
resident of Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
5/3. Smt. Sudesh W/o Shri Jaibhagwan D/o late Shri
Rampat, resident of Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh
5/4. Smt. Sunita W/o Shri Randheer D/o late Shri Rampat,
resident of Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
5/5. Smt. Mayawati W/o Shri Suresh Bhati d/o late Shri
Rampat, resident of Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.D. Thanvi, Senior Advocate, assisted
by Mr. Narendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI Judgment 09/02/2017 This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17/2015.
By the order aforesaid, learned Single Bench affirmed the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Nohar, accepting a revision petition preferred by respondents Leelu Ram and Rejesh as per the provisions of Section 97 of the (3 of 4) [SAW-888/2015] Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the Gram Panchayat Jogiwala granted certain pattas in favour of the appellant-petitioners said to be after conducting auction. The grant of pattas was assailed by way of filing a revision petition, that came to be accepted under the order dated 28.11.2014. Learned revisional authority while accepting the revision petition arrived at the conclusion that there was flagrant violation of Rules 150 and 161 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996'). The Revisional authority also arrived at the conclusion that there was no evidence available on record that even the auction said to have taken place was conducted by the auction committee as required under Rule 151 of the Rules of 1996. Beside the above, the Collector also noticed violation of Rule 152 and 154 of the rules of 1996.
Learned Single Bench examined the entire matter in detail and noticing the violations of the mandatory provisions arrived at the conclusion that the entire process of auction discloses clandestine action on part of the Gram Panchayat.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the revisional authority as well as the appellate authority failed to appreciate that as a matter of fact, the notice for auction as per Rule 150 of the Rules of 1996 was issued in accordance with law after providing a period of one month to submit the objections. From perusal of the facts stated in the order passed by the Additional Collector as per the provisions of Section 97, we do not find any (4 of 4) [SAW-888/2015] merit in the appeal. For the sake of argument, even if it is accepted that the notice for auction was as per Rule 150 of the Rules of 1996, then too, there is no explanation with regard to compliance of other mandatory provisions, i.e. Rule 151, 152, 154 and 161 (2) of the Rules of 1996. Beside that, the findings arrived by the revisional authority are pure findings of fact and learned Single Bench examined the same in detail and refused to interfere with the same. We do not find any just reason to alter that while exercising our appellate jurisdiction. Suffice to state that no finding suffers from any perversity or said to be in complete ignorance of existing facts.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Pramod