HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Hari Singh has filed this writ petition paying for issue of a writ, direction or order to quash the order of the Addl. Collector, Jodhpur dated 8 -11 -1985 by which the learned Addl. Collector has set aside the 'patta' granted to the petitioner and has directed an enquiry by the Gram Panchayat whether or not to grant the 'patta' of the disputed land to the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly stated here. The petitioner Hari Singh is a resident of Barli Tehsil Jodhpur. He had applied for grant of 'patta' in respect of a piece of land marked red in the site plan (Anx. 1) filed along with the writ petition. This piece of land is situated adjacent to the house of non -petitioner Jograj Singh and is opposite to the petitioner's own house which is across the road on the other side. The petitioner claimed possession over this land since the time of his ancestors and prayed for the grant of 'patta' in order to regularise his own possession and to perfect the title. It is alleged that after following the procedure laid down under rules 255 to 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Rules, 1961 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules'). The Panchayat granted the 'patta' in favour of the petitioner. The copy of that 'patta' is Anx. 2 and is dated 28 -9 -1964. No -petitioner No. 3 Jograj Singh is alleged to have opened a new door shown at 'Y' in Anx. 1 over looking the petitioner's aforesaid 'patta sud' land and thereby threatened the petitioner and his son to disturb their possession over this piece of land, whereupon Narainsingh son of the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against non -petitioner No. 3 in the court of the Munsif, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur for an injunction against non -petitioner No. 3 restraining him from dis -possession of the petitioner from the aforesaid land and not to obstruct him in raising construction thereon. An application for temporary injunction was also filed in that suit and after hearing both the parties the learned Munsif granted a temporary injunction as prayed for by Narain Singh against non -petitioner no. 3 Jograj Singh on 17 -7 -1985. Jograj Singh filed an appeal against this order which is said to be still pending before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jodhpur.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the learned Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction under Section 27(A) of the Act to revise the order of the Gram Panchayat granting 'patta' to the petitioner as the said order of the Panchayat was appealable under Section 26(A) of the Act and a revision was barred, that the learned Addl. Collector did not apply his mind to the material on record before him, that as a matter of fact there is no material on record in order to support the conclusion of the learned Addl. Collector that the sale was bad and that the findings of the learned Addl. Collector are against the record in as much as he has observed that the rules 255 to 266 have not been followed, where as in an earlier part of the order he has found that the rules had been complied with. The learned Counsel for non -petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have supported the order of the learned Addl. Collector and have urged that there is no error apparent on the face of the order of the learned Addl Collector and, therefore, this Court could not interfere with the same and that in such circumstances a writ of certiorari cannot be issued.