Shiv Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dated 14.2.08 of Additional District Collector, Sirohi, whereby a revision petition preferred by the respondent No. 3-Shiv Singh, assailing the patta of land ad measuring 3215 sq. ft. issued in favour of the petitioner, by the Gram Panchayat, Mohabbatnagar, stands cancelled.

The petitioner made an application to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Mohabbatnagar, for allotment of the land adjoining to his residential plot, alleged to be in his possession, for last 14-15 years. The Gram Panchayat issued patta in favour of the petitioner of the land measuring 3215 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs. 70730/-, pursuant to the proceedings alleged to have been taken under Rule 150 to 152 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). Aggrieved by the patta issued in favour of the petitioner as aforesaid, the respondent No. 3 preferred a revision petition before the Additional District Collector, Sirohi under Section 97 of the Act.

After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Revisional Authority arrived at the finding that the land in question could not have been allotted in favour of the petitioner herein by way of private negotiation and the same was required to be sold by way of public auction. The Revisional Authority found that the land in question, which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 herein, could not have been allotted as strip land either. Accordingly, the patta issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before issuing the patta in favour of the petitioner, the respondent Gram Panchayat has followed the procedure laid down under the Rules. In this regard, attention of the court is drawn to the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat placed on record. Learned counsel submitted that the patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat after adopting resolution in its meeting held on 20.2.06 and thus, the finding arrived at by the Revisional Authority is ex facie erroneous.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 while supporting the finding arrived at by the Revisional Authority, submitted that the land ad measuring 3215 sq. ft. in no manner, falls within the definition of ''strip land'' and therefore, could not have been allotted in favour of the petitioner by way of private negotiation. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question is adjacent to the land of respondent No. 3 as well and therefore, it was required to be sold only by way of public auction. Learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the Revisional Authority after due consideration of the material on record, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Additional Government Counsel while adopting the arguments raised on behalf of respondent No. 3, has supported the order passed by the Revisional Authority.

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

It is to be noticed that the petitioner was holding a plot ad measuring 1350 sq. ft. whereas, the area of the land adjoining to the petitioner''s plot, alleged to be in his possession, allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat, comes to 3215 sq. ft. A perusal of the application made by the petitioner reveals that the allotment was claimed by the petitioner on the basis of his alleged possession over the land for last 14-15 years. It is not in dispute that instead of putting the land to the public auction, the same has been allotted in favour of the petitioner by way of private negotiation.

Indisputably, the disposal of Abadi land in panchayat area is governed by the procedure laid down under the Rules 1996. It is true that Rule 156 permits the sale of the land by private negotiation, but then, the panchayat may transfer any Abadi land by way of sale by private negotiation only in the situation where any person has plausible claim of title to the land and an auction may not fetch the reasonable price; where there is trespass or for any other reason to be recorded in writing, Gram Panchayat thinks that an auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land; and where it is strip land as per sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 144 and there is only one applicant.

As per the provisions of Rule 144, the Panchayat is competent to allot a strip land only upto 100 sq. yard i.e. 900 sq. ft. for residential purposes and thus, the land in question, ad measuring 3215 sq. ft., does not fall within the definition of the ''strip land''. There was nothing on record to show that on account of the trespass of the petitioner over the land in question, the Panchayat arrived at the conclusion that an auction would not be convenient mode of disposal of the land and thus, there was no occasion for the Gram Panchayat to allot the land to the petitioner by way of private negotiation.

It is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of Rule 145, a person desirous of purchasing an Abadi land from the Gram Panchayat shall make an application in writing to the Panchayat giving such description thereof as may be sufficient to identify the land proposed to the purchased. On the application being received, the same is required to be registered by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, in the register maintained for the purpose in terms of Rule 146 of the Rules. Thereafter, a Committee of panchas is required to inspect the site and submit the report taking into consideration such various aspects enumerated by Rule 146(3) of the Rules. Thereafter, a provisional decision whether the proposed sale should or should not be made is required to be taken in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. Further, if the Panchayat provisionally decides that the sale should be made, it shall publish a notice in the form prescribed inviting objection to the proposed sale within one month from the date of publication in the manner laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 148 of the Rules and after disposal of the objections, if any received, the Panchayat may by resolution order the auction of the land proposed to be sold on the date not earlier than one month from the date of resolution at the time and place specified. The Auction Committee is required to be constituted as per Rule 151 of the Rules. The Rule 152 of the Rules mandates that it shall be the duty of the auction committee to ensure that there is free and fair competition among the bidders. Thus, in absence of existence of any of the circumstances enumerated under the Rule 156 of the Rules as noticed above, the plot in question could have been sold only by way of public auction and not otherwise in accordance with the procedure laid down as noticed above.

There is yet another aspect of the matter. A perusal of the patta reveals that it is alleged to have been issued after following the procedure laid down under Rule 150 to 152 whereas, admittedly, no auction as envisaged by Rule 152 of the Rules had taken place, rather, the same was allotted to the petitioner by way of private negotiation by invoking Rule 156 of the Rules without there being existence of the conditions enumerated therein.

Thus, viewed from any angle, this court is firmly of the opinion that the order impugned passed by the revisional authority is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

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