GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAJMATHAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) As the pleaded facts would reveal, a land (admeasuring 4 Bighas) comprising Khasra No.2698/1253 at revenue Village Rajmathai was being utilized for the purpose of Abadi, Panchayat Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Kendra, Patwar Bhawan etc., and adjacent to the said land, there was an Agore land comprising Khasra No. 2699/1253. A resolution was taken by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat to get the land set-apart for the purpose of Gair Mumkin Abadi, and further resolved to transfer a land of the equal measurement for development of the Agore land. 2.1. In pursuance of the said resolution, an application was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDM), Bhaniyana District Jaisalmer, that the land in Khasra no. 1253 on which government buildings are built was recorded as Gair Mumkim Agore land, whereupon, vide order 30/7/2021 passed by the SDM, the Tehsildar, Bhaniyana was directed to set apart the land comprising Khasra No. 1656/2458 measuring 0.6474 hectare as Agore land and land comprising Khasra no. 1253 as Abadi land. Subsequent to the conversion into Abadi land, the Gram Panchayat issued various pattas in regard to the land in question and the patta holders also started residing thereafter. 2.2 Subsequently, an application under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1956') was preferred by the private respondent herein before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer against the aforementioned order of the SDM, whereupon, vide the impugned order dtd. 10/1/2023 passed by the learned BoR, while allowing the said application, the order passed by the SDM was set aside. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned BoR, the present petition has been preferred, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application preferred by the private respondent before the BoR, other than the Tehsildar, neither the present petitioner nor the SDM concerned was impleaded as a party respondent, and without summoning of the record, the learned BoR had proceeded to pass the impugned order.