KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused order Annexure-6 dated 29.1.2007 passed by District Collector, Chittorgarh upon revision filed under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 by Divisional Forest Officer, Nimbaheda in which the patta issued in favour of the petitioner by Gram Panchayati Badi, Panchayat Samiti Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh was cancelled.

(2.) The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that patta was issued by Gram Panchayat Badi but revision petition was filed by Divisional Forest Officer while impleading only the petitioner as party respondent and without impleading Gram Panchayat Badi, which has issued patta in favor of the petitioner. Therefore, correct facts with regard to identity of the land was not properly brought to the notice of District Collector, Chittorgarh. Therefore, the order passed by District Collector is patently illegal because the order has been passed under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act upon the revision petition filed by Forest Department against the petitioner in which it has been held that the land in question is belonging to the Forest Department.

(3.) In my opinion, when the patta itself was issued by the Gram Panchayat Badi then Gram Panchayat Badi was necessary party in the proceedings before the District Collector, Chittorgarh. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that the order has been passed by the District Collector without hearing Gram Panchayat Badi, who has issued patta in favour of the petitioner.