YOGESH AND ORS. Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court by filing this writ petition assailing order dated 13.03.2008 of Respondent No. 1 Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu, by which revision petition filed by Gram Panchayat Bhojasar, Panchayat Samiti Jhunjhunu, has been allowed and pattas issued to them by order dated 27.09.2004 have been cancelled.

(2.) CONTENTION of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that Respondent No. 2 Gram Panchayat, Bhojasar, filed revision petition only because new election of Gram Panchayat took place and new Sarpanch was elected. It is for the reason of political rivalry that Petitioners have been victimized because they were issued pattas at the time when another person was Sarpanch. Learned Counsel argued that Additional District Collector allowed revision petition on flimsy ground and order has been passed in perfunctory manner without recording any specific finding and without dealing with arguments advanced by parties. It is argued that there was no necessity of following provisions of Rules 142 and 154 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The allotment of pattas in present matter was made by Gram Panchayat under Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, thereunder Panchayat Samiti has been given power to allot plots/lands measuring 150 square yards on concessional rate to members of Scheduled Caste, Scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Village Artisans and landless persons. Learned Counsel submitted that what has been held by Additional District Collector is that allottees for similar reasons have applied for allotment i.e. for keeping their cattle and for the purpose of their residence etc.; such reasons have to be similar with most of villagers. Learned Counsel referred to number of proceedings of meetings of Gram Panchayat, showing that applications submitted by Petitioners were scrutinized, their eligibility was examined and then allotments were made. None of those documents were either called for by Additional District Collector nor were examined and nothing that sort has been mentioned in the impugned order. Learned Counsel therefore prayed that impugned order be set aside. It is also argued that after allotment Petitioners have raised construction and presently residing in those plots. Interim order has also been passed by this Court on considering that fact.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I find myself unable to uphold the order passed by Additional District Collector. The order is really very vague and has been passed in a very perfunctory manner. It has not been examined from the perspective of Rule 158 whether allotments made to Petitioners satisfy the requirement of Rule 158 supra. Most of Petitioners belong to artisan class and remaining belong to scheduled caste. Nothing has been discussed whether the allottees were of the same family or whether they were not landless persons or they were interrelated or that they were otherwise not in need of allotment of land. Nothing has been elaborated as to why provisions of Rules 142 and 154 have not been followed and how these Rules would be applicable in the case of such nature where Rule 158 has been invoked by Gram Panchayat for allotment of land. Certified copies of umber of proceedings of Gram Panchayat, which are on record, have not been considered by the Additional District Collector. The allotments could not have been cancelled because same were made to persons belonging to one community or other, which was required to be examined on its own individual manner.