RANVEER Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHURU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against order dt. 29.2.08 passed by Additional Collector, Churu, allowing the revision petition preferred by the respondent No. 3 against the resolution dt. 17.6.04, adopted by the Administration and Establishment Committee of Panchayat Samiti, Taranagar, holding that the disputed plot belongs to the petitioner herein. The relevant facts are that the petitioner herein purchased a plot situated at Hamirawas Bada, Tehsil -Rajgarh, District - Churu on 16.11.96 by way of sale deed executed on a stamp of Rs. 20/ - by one Shri Mahavir S/o. Chandu Ram and Sukh Ram S/o. Richhpal. However, a patta of the said plot being patta No. 5 dt. 7.3.97 was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Hamirawas Bada in favour of the respondent No. 2 -Shrichand. The petitioner questioned the legality of the patta issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 before the District Collector, Churu. It appears that the matter was referred by the District Collector for disposal as an appeal to the Administration & Establishment Committee ('Establishment Committee') of Panchayat Samiti, Taranagar, which in its turn considered the matter in its meeting held on 17.6.04.

(2.) THE Establishment Committee opined that the plot in question belongs to the petitioner herein inasmuch as, the same was sold in his favour by Sukhram S/o. Richhpal and Mahavir S/o. Chanduram by way of a document executed on 16.11.96 and he is in the possession thereof.

(3.) AFTER due consideration of the rival submissions, the revisional authority found that the document alleged to have been executed by Mahavir S/o. Chanduram and Sukhram S/o. Richhpal on stamp of Rs. 20/ - does, not create any title in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the resolution adopted by the Establishment Committee is not in accordance with law. The revisional authority observed that while passing the resolution, the matter with regard to grant of patta in favour of the respondent No. 2 was not even inquired into by the Establishment Committee. The revisional authority further observed that as a matter of fact, the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein questioning the legality of the patta was liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. Accordingly, the revision petition preferred by the respondent No. 2 has been allowed by the revisional authority by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.