Shivji Ram & Anr @APPELLANT@Hash Heera Ram & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

Through this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have approached this Court for assailing the order (Annexure-

3) dated 30.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Collector, Didwana, District Nagaur in Revision No.03/2009 whereby, the revision

preferred by the respondent Heera Ram under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act was accepted and the patta No.36 dated 22.01.1972 allegedly

issued by the Gram Panchayat Indokha in favour of the petitioner’s father Late Shri Kaluram was quashed and set aside.

The thrust of arguments advanced by Shri M.S. Purohit, learned counsel representing the petitioners was that the patta in question came to be issued

way back in the year 1972. The revision was filed after significant delay in the year 2009 and thus, could not have been entertained and the same was

time barred. He further urged that the patta was duly issued after following the requisite procedure as provided under Rules 265, 266 and 277 of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1961 and as such, as per Shri Purohit, the revisional court committed grave error in law as well as in facts whilst

exercising the revisional jurisdiction and setting aside the patta issued almost 37 years ago. On these grounds, Shri Purohit craved acceptance of the

writ petition urging that the impugned order is totally arbitrary and perverse and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, Shri Manish Patel, AGC learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the

petitioner’s counsel. He urged that the patta No.36 which was allegedly issued in favour of the petitioner’s father Shri Kaluram was ex-facie

illegal and void ab initio for the reason that the Sarpanch, acted on his own in a grossly illegal manner and issued the patta on revenue land which was

never in jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat can only issue pattas for urban lands vested in the Panchayat and the illegal patta

which was issued by transgressing the jurisdiction was rightly quashed by the Additional District Collector in the revision. He further pointed out that

no record of the patta is available in the Panchayat. Furthermore, the patta was allegedly issued on 22.01.1972 whereas the amount of consideration to

the tune of Rs.50 was deposited on 22.07.1972. Thus, he submitted that the patta apart from being illegal is also forged and sought dismissal of the

writ petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

True it is that the revision was filed in the year 2009 i.e. after nearly 37 years from the date of issuance of the patta in question but this Court cannot

loose sight of the fact that in cases, where the pattas are issued in gross abhorrence to the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act and the Land

Allotment Rules, manifestly, the bogey of limitation cannot be treated a bar in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is a pertinent finding of the

revisional court in the impugned order that the patta was issued by the Srapanch concerned for land of Khasra No.135 which was revenue land and

not an urban land available to the panchayat for allotment. Since the patta was issued for land which was never under the administrative control of the

Gram Panchayat and was not available for allotment under the Panchayat Land Allotment Rules, manifestly, the Gram Panchayat had no business to

issue a patta thereof. That apart, the patta is apparently forged in view of the caegoric finding recorded by the revisional court in its order that the

document bears 22.01.1972 as the date of issuance whereas the receipt for deposit of consideration amount was prepared on 22.07.1972 i.e. nearly

six months later. In spite thereof, the entry of the receipt is shown on the date of procurement of the document. Thus manifestly, apart the patta

having been issued without any jurisdiction to the Panchayat (since the land was revenue land),the document is also forged and fabricated.

In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order (Annexure-3) dated 30.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional District

Collector, Didwana, District Nagaur does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity warranting interference therein while exercising the

extraordinary/supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Hence, the writ petition as well as stay application are rejected as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.