AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
71 paragraphs · 618 wordsS.No.,"S.B.C.W.P. Number
and
Name of the petitioner","Patta No. and
date of
issuance","Date of
revisional order
1.,"13015/2017
Mr. Naina Ram","Patta No.98
20.11.2004",17.06.2015
2.,"4265/2016
Mrs. Champa","Patta No.95
20.11.2004",11.12.2015
3.,"9453/2016
Mr. Bala Ram","Patta No.69
20.11.2004",15.07.2015
4.,"9454/2016
Mrs. Chuki","Patta No.161
20.11.2004",15.07.2015
5.,"12157/2016
Mr. Shaitan Ram","Patta No.97
20.11.2004",15.07.2015
6.,"12158/2016
Mr. Sangi Das","Patta No.77
20.11.2004",10.06.2015
7.,"13242/2016
Mr. Shyam Das","Patta No.34
20.11.2004",17.06.2015
8.,"13263/2016
Mr. Chaina Ram","Patta No.145
20.11.2004",17.06.2015
9.,"2824/2017
Mr. Ram Chandra","Patta No.146
20.11.2004",15.07.2015
10.,"11316/2017
Mr. Biram Ram","Patta No.221
20.11.2004",15.07.2015
11.,"11398/2017
Mr. Bhoma Ram","Patta No.171
20.11.2004",30.06.2015
12.,"12782/2017
Mrs. Seeta","Patta No.121
20.11.2004",03.06.2015
13.,"12960/2017
Mr. Ramu Ram","Patta No.17
20.11.2004",11.12.2015
14.,"13309/2017
Mrs. Dhaku","Patta No.123
20.11.2004",15.07.2015
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 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 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.",,,
No order as to costs.,,,