BADRI PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions seek to challenge the order of the District Collector, Sikar dt. 04.08.1997, who has thereby set aside the patta pursuant to the decision of the Gram Panchayat, Jalpani in revision petition filed by the private respondents. For deciding the controversy, the facts of CW No. 6862/97 are taken note of.

(2.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the pattas were issued to them on the basis of application of petitioners dt. 02.06.1963 and 14.06.1963 that they want to construct pucca houses on the land which was already in their possession. Since they have division among three brothers, three different pattas were issued by the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. Petitioners have raised construction and for last 35 years, they are residing peacefully on such land.

(3.) SHRI Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that, in fact, disputed houses were constructed on the land of Khasra No. 644 which was in the Khatedari of the respondents. Learned counsel cited the pattas issued to the petitioners by Gram Panchayat and submitted that in the pattas neither correct description of the land has been given, nor there was any measurement. The petitioners are in possession of the land much in excess of the land for which pattas have been issued and thereupon they encroached upon the land of the private respondents which was, in fact, agriculture land. The Patwari Halka inspected the site on 05.06.1995 under the order of Tehsildar and it was he who gave the finding that the petitioners have encroached upto 3 meters in the land of Khasra No. 644 belonging to the respondents. Learned counsel further argued that the suit filed by the petitioners for injunction has been dismissed. It was also argued that for issuance of patta compliance of provisions of Section 256 to 269 of the Rajasthan Panchayati (General) Rules, 1961 was not made. Neither any Committee of the panchas inspected the site, nor notice inviting objections was issued, nor was the notice was affixed at a conspicuous place close to the disputed site. The Collector was therefore fully justified in setting aside the pattas.