Santosh vs Takhat Singh and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.6.12 passed by the District Collector, Bikaner, whereby the revision petition preferred by the first respondent questioning the legality of the patta of a plot issued in favour of the petitioner, has been allowed and consequently, the patta issued in favour of the petitioner, stands cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the patta of the plot in question has been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Nalbadi, in favour of the petitioner after following the procedure laid down under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short "the Rules of 1961") and therefore, the order impugned passed by the revisional authority cancelling the patta is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that the revision petition questioning the legality of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner was filed by the first respondent, after a lapse of more than five years and therefore, the revision petition was liable to be dismissed on this count alone. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon decisions of this court in the matter of "Abdul Latif and Anr. vs. State and Ors.", 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj.), 735 and "Ramkishan Vs. State of Rajasthan" (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 120/12 and other connected special appeals), decided vide order dated 29.3.11.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Counsel submitted that admittedly, the patta was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat, Nalbadi, by adopting a resolution in its meeting held on 5.2.04, while taking proceedings under the provisions of Rules of 1961, which stand repealed by virtue of Rule 374 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules of 1996"), which have come into force w.e.f. 30.12.96 and therefore, the revisional authority has committed no error in cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence available on record showing the existence of old constructed house over the plot in question yet, the patta has been issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner by private negotiation in terms of Rule 266 of the Rules, by charging a meagre amount of Rs. 200/-, which is ex facie illegal.

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

Indisputably, the patta of the plot in question has been issued in favour of the petitioner by private negotiation. The transfer of the lands by private negotiation under the Rules of 1961 was earlier governed by the provisions of Rule 266, whereas under the Rules of 1996, the same is dealt with by the provisions of Rule 156. Both the provisions relevant for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the present writ petition may be beneficially quoted:-

Rules of 1961

"Rule 266. Transfer of abadi land by private negotiation. - (1) The Panchayat may transfer any abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation in the following cases:-

(a) Where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and as auction may not fetch reasonable price;

(b) where for reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the land;

(c) where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the advancement of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes or other backward classes.

(d) where the persons are in possession of the abadi land for 20 years or more but less than 42 years, one-third of the prevailing market price and in case of possession of over 40 years, one sixth of the prevailing market-price shall be charged.

(2) The Panchayat may, by resolution, transfer by way of sale without charging any price therefor, any abadi land of which the probable value does not excess Rs. 200/- in favour of any institution for a public purpose."

Rules of 1996

"Rule 156. Transfer of Abadi land by private negotiation. - (1) The Panchayat may transfer any Abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation in the following cases:-

(a) Where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price;

(b) Where there is a trespass or for any other reason to be recorded in writing, Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land;

(c) Where it is strip of land as per Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 144 and there is only one applicant.

(2) In no case such Abadi land, shall be transferred on a rate below index price fixed by Sub-Registrar and conveyed by Vikas Adhikari as prevailing market price for the village.

(3) Such market price in a bazaar or commercial area shall not be less than double the price fixed for residential areas."

A bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 266 of the Rules of 1961 and Rule 156 of the Rules of 1996 makes it abundantly clear that for invoking the power conferred on Panchayat for transfer of Abadi land by private negotiation, there are two conditions precedent; firstly, the person asking for the sale of land by private negotiation must have plausible claim of title to the land and secondly, the Panchayat must come to a definite conclusion that the land claimed to be sold by private negotiation may not fetch reasonable price if the same is put to auction. It goes without saying that a plausible claim of title to the land pre supposes the existence of some material on record to show that the person asking for the patta has acquired a reasonable claim of title under the law though he may not be in position to establish his clear title. Further, the proceedings must reflect that having considered the matter in its entirety and objectivity the Panchayat was satisfied that if the land sought to be sold by private negotiation is put to auction, the same may not fetch reasonable price.

A bare perusal of the proceedings alleged to have been taken by the Gram Panchayat placed on record reveals that no such exercise was at all undertaken by the Gram Panchayat while issuing the patta of the Abadi land in question in favour of the petitioner. As noticed by the revisional authority, the application submitted by the petitioner does not disclose as to since when he is in possession of the lands. Besides, the specification of the lands alleged to be in possession of the petitioner herein was also not set out in the application made as aforesaid. All that has been mentioned by the petitioner in the said application is that they intend to get patta of Baras/Old house in Abadi land in her possession. Thus, in absence of any material on record about the long possession of the petitioner over the land in question so as to give rise to plausible claim of title, the decision taken by the Panchayat to straight away issue pattas in favour of the petitioner presuming the plausible claim of title of the petitioner, is ex facie contrary to the provisions of the relevant Rules. It is also relevant to mention here that merely because, a notice was issued and no objections were received, it cannot lead to a conclusion that the petitioner''s old possession over the lands in dispute stands established. It is the duty of the Panchayat to come to the definite conclusion on the basis of the material on record that the applicants claiming the sale of the Abadi land by private negotiation have plausible claim of title to the land. That apart, a perusal of the proceedings placed on record reveals that nowhere the Panchayat has recorded its satisfaction that the auction may not fetch reasonable price.

As per provisions of Rule 266(1)(d), where the person in possession of the Abadi land for 20 years or more but less than 42 years, 1/3rd of the prevailing market price and in case of possession of over 40 years, 1/6th of prevailing market price shall be charged. It is significant to note that as per Rule 156(2) of the Rules of 1996, now the Panchayat is not empowered to transfer Abadi land by private negotiation on a rate below index price fixed by Sub Registrar and conveyed by Vikas Adhikaris as prevailing market price of the village. Suffice it to say that before transferring the land by private negotiation and issuing pattas, the Gram Panchayat was under an obligation to ascertain the prevailing market price so as to determine the amount to be charged from the petitioner against the transfer of the Abadi land in terms of Rule 266 of the Rules of 1961 or the Rule 156 of the Rules of 1996, as the case may be. It is apparent on the face of record that no such exercise was ever taken by the Gram Panchayat and the huge land has been transferred in favour of the petitioner for a meagre amount Rs. 200/- i.e. for less than 5 paisa per sq. ft. Thus, it appears that the petitioner in connivance with the elected representative of Gram Panchayat has grabbed the huge land at a throw away price.

Coming to the question of delay in filing the revision petition, suffice it to say that the allotment of the land belonging to local authority or Government obtained without any lawful entitlement by playing fraud is void and no limitation should come in the way of the authority competent to cancel such allotment.

In Abdul Latif''s case (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, a coordinate Bench of this court declined to interfere with the order passed by the revisional authority dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioners therein under Section 97 of the Act, observing that the revision petition filed after a lapse of about more than 21 years was not justified, when the petitioners therein remained in peaceful possession of the plot for the said entire period. The court observed that if it is assumed that no period of limitation is provided for maintaining the revision petition then also, taking note of the provisions of Limitation Act at the best, the revision can be maintained within a period of three years and in any case, not beyond a period of 12 years.

In Ramkishan''s case (supra), a Bench of this court while relying upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shri Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others Vs. Shri Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others, and State of Punjab and Others Vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd., observed that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period, however, what shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liability thereunder and other relevant factor.

In the considered opinion of this court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, where the dispute plot has been allotted to the petitioner dehors the Rules on throw away price, is an example of grabbing of the public land with the encouragement of the office bearers of the local authority and therefore, the revisional authority has committed no error in setting aside the patta invoking the revisional powers under Section 97 of the Act, even after the lapse of period of five years.

In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the revisional authority does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.