SAMPAT LAL SETHIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition has impugned the order of Revisional Authority. In revision, the Revisional Authority has quashed a grant made in favour of the petitioner had his near relatives. THE petitioner was at the relevant time, Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Udasar. Even, recently he continues to be Up-Sarpanch.

(2.) AN application was field by the petitioner for the purchase of land in view of Rule 256 and 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961' ). While the application was processed, site was inspected as required by Rule 258 of the Rules of 1961. A Committee of three members for inspection of site was constituted by Panchayat including the petitioner. Since, the Committee of Members for inspection of site included the petitioner, he did not participate in the inspection. The inspection was carried out only by two members namely Shri Sukh Singh and Shri Mohbtaram. After inspection, a notice under Rule 260 of the Rules of 1961 was published. The petitioner has submitted that even if it is assumed that notice did not fulfill the requirement of Rule 260, yet till date no objection was raised in relation to the allotment. Further, such objections have not even been made, when the construction was raised at the site. There had been a prejudice going on against the petitioner due to political rivalry. Some criminal complaints have even been lodged alleging false reports against him. Such reports have resulted which had resulted into filing of final report by the Investigation Agency.

(3.) NOTICES were issued to the respondents. The respondents joined the issue and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 contested the stand of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner was never in possession of the land in question. No proof has been filed in support of the claim petition that he is in possession of the land. the land are at about 1 1/2 kms. away form the area of Bikaner City and National Highway. It is a very costly piece of land which has been taken away by the petitioner without following law. The petitioner's application was not entered in Register Form No. 49 as required under Rule 257 (1) of the Rules of 1961. Curiously, while the petitioner was member of the Committee, the proceedings were taken regarding issuance of patta. While has case was being processed, he could not have participated in the proceedings regarding issuance of patta in his own favour and also in favour of his relations.