PEMA RAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 03.09.2012 as passed in CWP No.9037/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to entertain the writ petition against the order dated 25.07.2012 as passed in Panchayat Revision Petition No.10/2011 whereby the District Collector, Barmer proceeded to cancel one patta bearing number 21 dated 11.10.2006 as issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gunga for about 18,750 sq.ft. of land in the name of regularisation of old possession for a sum of Rs.200/- under Rule 157 (b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996').

(2.) IN the impugned order dated 25.07.2012, the learned Collector found the patta in question offending all the requirements of law and having been issued in contravention of Section 48 (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act of 1994') and Rule 47 (1) of the Rules of 1996 for the wife of the allottee-appellant, the Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned, having participated in the meeting where the decision was taken for issuance of the patta in question. The learned Collector also found that the proceedings stood vitiated for non-compliance of the other requirements of the Rules. The Collector, inter alia, observed and held as under:-

(3.) SUB -section (3) of Section 48 of the Act of 1994 specifically prohibits any member of Panchayati Raj Institution from voting on or taking part in the discussion at a meeting of the Institution or presiding over the meeting when any such question comes up for consideration in which he/she has any pecuniary interest. Admitted position it is that the petitioner-appellant's wife had been the Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned and did preside over the meeting in which the decision was taken to issue patta in favour of the petitioner-appellant in regard to 18,750 sq. ft. of land for Rs. 200/- in the name of regularisation. The pecuniary interest of the appellant's wife in such a decision is hardly a matter of doubt or debate. Whether any person raised objection per Sub-section (4) of Section 48 or not, the decision stood vitiated for having been taken squarely in defiance of the mandate of law. It would be rather a travesty of justice if a huge chunk of land admeasuring 18,750 sq. ft. is permitted to be given to the husband of the Sarpanch in the name of regularisation for a sum of Rs. 200/-; and that too, by way of a decision taken with the active participation of the Sarpanch herself. The act on the part of the appellant and his wife could only be viewed with disfavour and a writ Court could have never countenanced such a blatant misuse of powers.