PRABHATI LAL Vs. ADDOTIONAL DISTRICT COLLECTOR SIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of the Additional District Collector, Sikar dated 17.7.2009. The Additional Collector by the aforesaid order has allowed the revision petition filed by respondent no.2 Rampal. The respondent no.2 had filed the revision petition against the patta dated 26.12.04 issued by the Gram Panchayat Malikpur, Tehsil, Srimadhopur in favour of petitioner Prabhati Lal. This revision petition was earlier dismissed by order of Additional Collector dated 28.9.03. Respondent no.2 thereupon approached this Court by filing writ petition no.9092/05. Argument of respondent no.2 Rampal before this Court was that his revision petition has been dismissed only on the ground that the record relating to allotment of this very land made in his favour by patta dated 28.11.82 was not available in the Gram Panchayat, nor such record was produced by the Gram Panchayat. However, in reply to writ petition filed before this Court in the writ petition, Gram Panchayat admitted that allotment was in fact made in favour of respondent no.2 Rampal, who was petitioner in that writ petition and the resolution of Gram Panchayat to that effect was also produced with the reply. This Court, in that context observed that there appears to be some misrepresentation on behalf of the Gram Panchayat at the time of disposal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner i.e. the respondent no.2 herein. This Court therefore remanded the matter back to the District Collector to make thorough inquiry in regard to issuance of patta in favour of respondent no.2 and subsequent patta in favour of petitioner after calling entire record and pass fresh order with regard to allotment of land to either party. It was observed that if there was any misrepresentation or concealment by the concerned authorities of the Gram Panchayat or the concerned officer, necessary disciplinary action may be taken against them by the District Collector after making property enquiry. It is thereafter that the Additional Collector has passed the impugned order dated 17.7.09 cancelling the patta subsequently issued in favour of petitioner on 26.12.04.

(2.) Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that patta in the land of dispute could not have been issued to respondent no.2 by Gram Panchayat on 28.11.1982 because mutation of this land was attested in favour of Gram Panchayat much later on 11.2.1990. The relevant certified copy of the mutation register is at Annexure-1. Learned counsel also referred to Annexure-4, application of respondent no.2 dated 28.11.1982 to argue that the respondent no.2 had made application for allotment of land on 28.11.82 and on that very day entire proceedings were completed and the patta was illegally issued in his favour. Learned counsel even suggested that the land for which patta has been issued to the petitioner, in fact, is not the same land for which the patta was earlier issued to respondent no.2. No proper enquiry in regard to this issue has been made by the Additional District Collector.

(3.) Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel submitted that record of Gram Panchayat reveals that patta was issued in favour of respondent no.2 Rampal after charging fees on 23.9.1982, whereas in the earlier order dated 28.9.05 dismissing the revision petition, the Additional Collector observed that requisite fee was deposited on 8.9.1985. If that was true, how patta could be issued on 28.11.82? This clearly goes to show that patta has been illegally issued in favour of respondent no.2. No new material was produced before the Additional Collector, therefore, he could not have taken a different view than the one expressed in the previous order. It is argued that petitioner has been in possession of the land for a long time. This land being a sevai chak land, the old possession of the petitioner has been regularised by granting patta on consideration of the fact that he is imparting education to the children of the village. Mere fact that the petitioner is permanent native of another village would not be a reason not to grant him land in village Malikpur because petitioner has paid premium for purchase of such land. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside.