Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.76 seconds)
Naina Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 7 February, 2019 cites

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8316/2015 vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 21 September, 2015

In that view of the matter, all these writ petitions are disposed of in view of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Dhagli (supra) and the impugned orders dated 30.06.2015 (SBCWP Nos. 1355/2019, 11290/2017 & 11301/2017), 15.07.2015 (SBCWP Nos. 2598/2017 & 3172/2017), 03.06.2015 (SBCWP No. 3171/2017), 17.06.2015 (SBCWP No. 13306/2017) and 11.12.2015 (SBCWP Nos. 13883/2017, 13884/2017 & 13886/2017) are quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 3 - Cited by 542 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Tara & Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr. on 15 July, 2015

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 (8 of 9) [CW-1355/2019] that too 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 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."
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 32 - Cited by 172 - Full Document
1