Krishna Kumar and Others vs The Additional District Collector and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.�By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned legality of order dated 31.7.2000 passed by the Additional District Collector, Nohar, whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent No. 4 questioning the legality of pattas issued in favour of the petitioners has been allowed and while setting aside the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners, the matter has been remanded to the Gram Panchayat, Phephana to issue the pattas on the basis of old possession, after following the procedure laid down and due consideration of the applications preferred by the respondent No. 4-Madan Lal and others.

The relevant facts are that the petitioners residents of village-Phephana, belonging to weaker sections, made applications to the Gram Panchayat, Phephana for allotment of the abadi land free of charge in terms of Rule 267 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyay Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short "the Rules"). The Gram Panchayat by a resolution adopted in its meeting held on 22.4.96, resolved to grant pattas in favour of the petitioners as applied for and pursuant thereto, the pattas were issued in their favour between the period from 25.6.96 to 27.6.96.

The legality of the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners was questioned by the respondent No. 4 by filing an appeal before Panchayat Samiti, Nohar. The respondent No. 4 claimed that he alongwith his brothers are in possession of the land for more than 30 years and have already applied for issuing the pattas to the Gram Panchayat, Phephana. The appeal preferred was dismissed by the Panchayat Samiti, Nohar vide order dated 26.12.97. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 4 preferred a revision petition before the Additional District Collector, Nohar under Section 97 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The revisional authority arrived at the finding that while disposing of the appeal, the Panchayat Samiti has not inquired into as to whether while issuing the pattas, Gram Panchayat, Phephana, has followed the procedure laid down. The revisional authority observed that before passing the order, both the parties were required to be extended full opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the matter was remanded by the revisional authority to the Panchayat Samiti, Nohar for consideration afresh. The revisional authority observed that the Panchayat Samiti shall also make an inquiry as to whether the petitioners herein are entitled for grant of pattas in their favour free of cost. After the remand, the Panchayat Samiti, Nohar rejected the appeal observing that the respondent No. 4 herein was not in possession of the land as claimed and the pattas of the open land issued by the Gram Panchayat in their favour are well within its jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Panchayat Samiti as aforesaid, the respondent No. 4 preferred a revision petition before the Additional District Collector, Nohar which stands allowed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the revisional authority has seriously erred in cancelling the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners and directing the Gram Panchayat, Phephana to issue pattas in favour of Madan Lal and others on the basis of their old possession. Learned counsel submitted that the matter with regard to the possession of Madan Lal over the disputed land was never inquired into by the Panchayat Samiti while rejecting the appeal preferred by him. Learned counsel submitted that no evidence worth the name was produced by Madan Lal so as to establish his old possession over the disputed land. Learned counsel submitted that while setting aside the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners and remanding the matter to Gram Panchayat, Phephana for fresh consideration, there was no occasion for the revisional authority to issue the directions as aforesaid for issuing the pattas in favour of Madan Lal and others on the basis of their alleged old possession. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners belong to weaker sections and after due consideration of their applications, they have been granted pattas by way of a resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat in its meeting in accordance with the procedure laid down and therefore, there was no occasion for the revisional authority to interfere with the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat in accordance with law.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the matter has been remanded by the revisional authority to the Gram Panchayat for fresh consideration and therefore, the remand order passed does not warrant any interference by this court. Learned counsel submitted that the revisional authority has issued the directions in terms that the applications preferred may be considered afresh and the pattas may be issued after following the procedure laid down and therefore, the directions issued do not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, in the first instance vide order dated 29.7.98, the revisional authority remanded the matter to Panchayat Samiti, Nohar with the directions to make an inquiry as to whether the petitioners herein are entitled for allotment of the abadi land free of cost and further that whether the pattas have been issued in their favour after following the procedure laid down. That apart, the directions were issued to extend an opportunity of hearing to the revision petitioner, the respondent No. 4 herein. A perusal of the order passed by the Panchayat Samiti pursuant to the remand order passed by the revisional authority as aforesaid, reveals that the directions issued by the revisional authority were not fully complied with and the matter was decided by the Panchayat Samiti in its meeting held on 11.10.99 by merely recording its ipse dixit that the respondent No. 4-Madan Lal was never in possession of the land and the Gram Panchayat is empowered to issue pattas of the open land of Gram Panchayat. But then, the revisional authority while recording the finding that the Panchayat Samiti has ignored the relevant aspects of the matter, straight away proceeded to cancel the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners without there being any finding recorded to the effect that the pattas were issued in favour of the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat in defiance of the relevant Rules. Moreover, without there being any material on record establishing the old possession of the respondent No. 4-Madan Lal over the disputed land, direction issued for consideration of his application for issuance of patta on the basis of old possession, also does not appears to be just and proper. In the considered opinion of this court, instead of remanding the matter, it would have been appropriate for the revisional authority to requisition the record from Gram Panchayat relating to the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners and examine as to whether the petitioners were entitled for allotment of abadi land free of cost in terms of Rule 267 of the Rules and whether while issuing the pattas in their favour, the procedure laid down was followed. The claim of the respondent No. 4 also could have been examined by the revisional authority on the basis of the material on record. In this view of the matter, it will be appropriate that the matter is remanded to the revisional authority for consideration afresh.

In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned passed by the revisional authority is set aside. The matter is remanded to the revisional authority for consideration afresh. The revisional authority shall requisition the relevant record from Gram Panchayat and shall pass the appropriate order afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the respondent No. 4. The parties are litigating for last so many years and therefore, the revisional authority is directed to decide the revision petition expeditiously, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.