Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 February, 2019
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1510/2019
Smt. Dhagli W/o Shri Dhagla Ram, Aged About 45 Years, By
Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji, Panchayat
Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sanpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1457/2019
Jaga Ram S/o Shri Hira Ram, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste
Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its Sarpanch,
Panchayat Samiti- Mandore, Distt- Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1458/2019
Bhoma Ram S/o Shri Pratap Ram, Aged About 50 Years, By
Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
(2 of 12) [CW-1510/2019]
Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its Sarpanch,
Panchayat Samiti- Mandore, Distt- Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1459/2019
Tulsi W/o Shri Dhagla Ram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste
Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji, Panchayat
Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1460/2019
Chaina Ram S/o Shri Budha Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
B/c Choudhary, Village Lordi Panditji, Panchayat Samiti,
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1461/2019
(3 of 12) [CW-1510/2019]
Dhapu W/o Shri Narayan Ram, Aged About 45 Years, By
Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti- Mandore, Distt-
Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1462/2019
Gopa Ram S/o Shri Pratap Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1464/2019
Dhagla Ram S/o Shri Surta Ram, Aged About 60 Years,
By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
(4 of 12) [CW-1510/2019]
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti- Mandore, Distt-
Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1465/2019
Narayan S/o Shri Surta Ram, Aged About 45 Years, B/c
Choudhary, Village Lordi Panditji, Panchayat Samiti,
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1466/2019
Tila Ram S/o Shri Gordhan Ram, Aged About 46 Years,
By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1468/2019
(5 of 12) [CW-1510/2019]
Bhanwara Ram S/o Shri Prema Ram, Aged About 30
Years, B/c Choudhary, Village Lordi Panditji, Panchayat
Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, Distt.
Jodhpur (Raj).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1471/2019
Shyam Lal S/o Shri Pratap Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1472/2019
Kanwara Ram S/o Shri Birm Ram, Aged About 45 Years,
By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
(6 of 12) [CW-1510/2019]
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti- Mandore, Distt-
Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1504/2019
Kera Ram S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By
Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti- Mandore, Distt-
Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1506/2019
Kesi Devi W/o Hari Ram, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste
Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji, Panchayat
Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti- Mandore, Distt-
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1507/2019
(7 of 12) [CW-1510/2019]
Smt. Dhakhu W/o Dhanna Ram, Aged About 65 Years,
By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, Distric Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, Distt.
Jodhpur. (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1508/2019
Buddha Ram S/o Shri Tulsi Ram, Aged About 55 Years,
By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1509/2019
Smt. Bhavri W/o Tila Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
(8 of 12) [CW-1510/2019]
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, Distt.
Jodhpur. (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1519/2019
Shera Ram S/o Shri Rughnath Ram, Aged About 55
Years, By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi
Panditji, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sanpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, Distt.
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1522/2019
Jagga Ram S/o Shri Ganesh Ram, Aged About 52 Years,
By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sanpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, Distt.
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
(9 of 12) [CW-1510/2019]
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1524/2019
Jala Ram S/o Shri Joga Ram, Aged About 46 Years, By
Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Village Lordi Panditji,
Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District
Collector, Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Lordi Pandit Ji, Through Its
Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tribhuwan Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order 01/02/2019 The instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging order dt.30.06.2015, 27.05.2015, 15.07.2015, 17.06.2015, 03.06.2015 & 11.12.2015 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur whereby revision petition has been allowed and the valid pattas issued to the petitioners have been cancelled.
Learned counsel for the parties have been submitted that the similar controversy has been decided initially by this Court led by SBCWP No.13015/2017 [Naina Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] decided by a common order dt.20.11.2018.
(10 of 12) [CW-1510/2019] Learned counsel has submitted that another identical bunch of writ petitions-SBCWP No.841/2019 [Padma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] and other connected writ petitions were decided by this Court on 17.01.2019. The order passed by this Court in SBCWP No.841/2019 [Padma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] and other connected writ petitions is quoted hereunder:-
While deciding the identical bunch of writ petitions, this Court held as under:-
"Learned counsel Mr. Paramveer Singh Champawat and Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, Advocates representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that the District Collector committed grave error in facts as well as in law while entertaining the revisions in question. The petitioners were in peaceful possession of the land under the questioned pattas for nearly 9 to 10 years before the revisions came to be instituted. The pattas were lawfully issued to the petitioners as per their after making due enquiry and following the requisite procedure provided under the Panchayati Raj Act and the Land Allotment Rules. The revisional authority went on to delve into disputed questions of facts and proceeded to quash the pattas of land lawfully issued to the petitioners without any justification whatsoever. He further submitted that the entire action was perpetrated at the instance of the JDA, which was bent upon to usurp the land in question lawfully owned by the petitioners for the purpose of establishing Sardar Patel Police University. He further urged that in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Tara & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2015 (3) WLN 197 (Raj.), the revisions were liable to the dismissed as being time barred. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners craved quashing of the impugned orders and acceptance of the writ petitions.
Per contra, Mr. Manish Patel, learned AGC, representing the Panchayati Raj Department, has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He submitted (11 of 12) [CW-1510/2019] that the disputed pattas were issued in favour of the petitioners without following the due process of law and as such, the District Collector was absolutely justified in quashing and setting aside same by the impugned order, which as per Mr. Patel, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference therein.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record.
The first and foremost circumstance, which convinces the court that the revisional authority acted totally in an unjust manner while entertaining the challenge to the subject pattas is that the revisions came to be instituted after nearly 9 to 10 years after the date of issuance of the pattas in question and that too at at the instance of the Vikas Adhikari concerned. No reason or cause was set up in the pleadings of the revisions as to why the pattas issued to the petitioners, who belong to the weaker sections of the society were being challenged after a gross delay of 9 years. The administration being the revisionist did not set up a case that it was not aware of these pattas for all these years. Though it is true that the concept of delay does not apply in strict sense to the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the District Collector by virtue of Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, but while entertaining a revision filed after significant delay, the court has to remain mindful of the reasons behind the delay. If there is no justification whatsoever for the delay, then the revision should normally should not be entertained. Furthermore, Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the case of Tara (supra) considered the very issue of delay and held that a period of three years should normally be sufficient to be treated to be the outer limit for entertaining a challenge to a patta or any such allotment. Furthermore, on perusal of the impugned order, this court is duly satisfied that no significant shortcoming, illegality or irregularity in the procedure was pointed out by the revisionist Vikas Adhikari while filing the questioned revisions.
Considering the fact that the petitioners all belong to the weaker sections of the society, this court is of the firm opinion that the revisional authority was not at all satisfied while entertaining purely disputed questions of facts for setting aside the pattas of (12 of 12) [CW-1510/2019] land issued to the petitioners way back in the year 2004. On a careful evaluation on facts as well as on law, the impugned orders do not stand to scrutiny, thus, the same are liable to be and are hereby struck down. The writ petitions deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed, as such. The stay applications are also disposed of."
In view of the fact that the present writ petitions are squarely covered by decision passed by this Court, the present writ petitions too deserve to be allowed and are hereby allowed. Thus, the impugned orders dt.30.06.2015, 27.05.2015, 15.07.2015, 17.06.2015, 03.06.2015 & 11.12.2015 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur whereby the pattas issued to the petitioners were cancelled, are quashed and struck down.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in each and every file.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J A.Kumar/36 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)