UNA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the father and grandfather of the petitioners are having the possession over a piece of abadi land at Luni from last 100 years. On 25/5/2001, an application was submitted by Shri Paru Ram for obtaining the Patta of the parental land before the Gram Panchayat Luni. After completion of the proceedings, the Gram Panchayat issued Patta No.53 in favour of the petitioners by way of proposal No.7 dtd. 20/5/2003. The respondent No.3-Chain Bharti filed a revision petition under Sec. 97 of the Panchayat Raj Act,1994 in the year 2012 before the Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur on the ground that the land in question did not vest in the abadi at the time of issuance of the Patta. As the revision petition was preferred by the private respondent after a period of nine years, an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was also preferred. The petitioner submitted all the relevant documents before the Revisional Court. On 19/5/2014 (Annexure-8), the Revisional Court passed an order for site inspection of the land in question. On 15/12/2014, the Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur passed an order while giving certain direction to the concerned authorities for conducting an enquiry for the said land in question. In pursuance of the said order, an enquiry was initiated and a report was placed before the Office of Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur on 11/1/2016 (Annexure-11). Further, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad sent a communication to Vikas Adhikari, Luni with a direction to conduct a detailed enquiry. The Additional Collector also sent a communication dtd. 17/3/2016 (Annexure-13) to the Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Luni for taking appropriate steps. Thereafter, the private respondent filed an application before the Addition Collector (I), Jodhpur on 29/3/2019 for calling the enquiry report from the concerned authority. Upon such application, the Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur registered a review application and petitioner was served upon notices. The Additional Collector (I), Jodhpur passed an order dtd. 17/3/2020 (Annexure-16) while directing the concerned authorities to cancel the Patta issued in favour of the petitioners. Being aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner and their father and grandfather have been in possession of the land in dispute since last 100 years and are enjoying a peaceful possession of the same and upon which a house has also been constructed by them. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submit that the petitioners have been issued the Patta in light of Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 (hereinafter the rules of 1996) which pertains to regularisation of old houses and thus, the respondents while adhering to the provisions as laid down under Rule 157 of the rules of 1996 have issued the Patta in favour of the petitioners and thus, the same ought not to be cancelled by the respondents. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Patta was issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 2003 after adopting due process of law whereas the private respondent has filed revision petition under Sec. 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act in the year 2012, after a delay of about nine years.. Thus, on the ground of delay itself, the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also places reliance upon the order dtd. 12/4/1999 passed in SBCWP No.1672/1997, order dtd. 2/5/2013 passed in SBCWP No.2421/2012 (Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the order dtd. 19/5/2022 in SBCWP No.18087/2019 (Nisha Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the relevant portion of the said orders are reproduced hereunder: SBCWP No.1672/1997 "In Dhanraj's Case uncontroverted facts were that the sale by the Gram panchayat was in favour of the persons who were relatives of the then Sarpanch. The land was in public use for a long time and it was situated inthe middle of the village and sale was surreptitious and not by public auction in the manner prescribed. That is not the case here. The facts of the present case are totally different. None of the petitioner is alleged to be relative of the then Sarpanch of the Panchayat. The sale was by public auction on the same day and in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Only because everything was done on one day that itself would not be a factor to interfere with the order of allotment after delay of about six years. It is also true that revision in absence of appeal was maintainable but it is clear that instead of availing a statutory right of appeal, for the reasons best known to the state and other private respondents, revision was filed against the order of grant of Pattas after as many as six years. During this period, the petitioners have already raised construction on the land. This aspect of the case was not at all considered by the Addl. Collector while allowing the revision. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing the writ petition. When no period of Limitation is provided then it has to be filed within a reasonable period. Reasonable period depends upon the facts of each case. It can be at the most one or two years as held by this court in several decisions as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the instant case gross delay of six years. Which totally remain unexplained was sufficient for the Addl Collector to refuse to exercise his jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the learned Addl Collector has not at all considered this aspect of the matter. In view of the above discussion this petition is allowed, the Impugned common order dtd. 29/3/97 passed by the Addl. Collector in allowing the revision petition is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. Stay order granted, if any, in this case, stands vacated." SBCWP No.2421/2012 (Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.)