UMA SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2001 whereby the Additional Collector and the Additional District Magistrate, Kota has cancelled the Patta dated 11.01.2000 granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has come knocking at the doors of this Court.

(2.) In a nutshell the facts of the case are that on 11.10.1999, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No.3, Gram Panchayat, for allotment of land. The Sarpanch considered the application on 11.10.1999, and directed the petitioner to deposit the application and map charges amounting to Rs. 50.00. The Sarpanch further directed the concerned employees of the Gram Panchayat to notify the application for inviting objections, and to place the matter for further consideration on 15.11.1999. In terms of the proceedings drawn on 11.10.1999, the Gram Panchayat published a notification inviting objections in the prescribed manner. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Gram Panchayat. Since, no objections were received from persons interested, the Gram Panchayat decided to allot the land earmarked as Plot No. 13, in village Kanwas at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per sq. feet and also to charge Rs. 50.00 as Patta charges. The members of the Gram Panchayat inspected the site; on the basis of the inspection, the boundaries of Plot No. 13 were drawn. In pursuance of the allotment of the land to the petitioner by the respondent No.3, vide resolution dated 15.11.1999, the petitioner deposited the entire charges as demanded by the respondents. Thereafter, the sale-deed was executed on 11.01.2000 in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 handed over the possession of the land to the petitioner. Accordingly, the land was conveyed to her. Since the petitioner wanted to construct a house upon the land, she moved an application before the Gram Panchayat seeking permission for raising the construction. Vide letter dated 29.04.2000, the Gram Panchayat accorded its permission. Consequently, the petitioner started the construction. Meanwhile, the Nayab Tehsildar, Shri Ram Swaroop Arvind stopped the construction and took away the raw material. The Tehsildar, the respondent No.1 also started harassing the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit before the Civil Judge 'J.D.' and Judicial Magistrate, Kanwas for permanent injunction against the Tehsildar. Eventually, the Civil Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. In the mean time, the Tehsildar submitted an application before the Additional Collector under Sec. 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (The Act', for short). The Additional Collector issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded before the Additional Collector that the proceedings initiated by him are without jurisdiction. However, notwithstanding the said plea, vide order dated 28.06.2001, the Additional Collector has set aside the allotment letter 15.11.1999 and the Patta dated 11.01.2000. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Satish Khandelwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, since an appeal lies under Sec. 61 of the Act, a revision under Sec. 97 of the Act does not lie in facts of the present case. Secondly, the application filed by the Tehsildar under Sec. 97 of the Act was hit by limitation as the Tehsildar was trying to set aside the Patta issued on 11.01.2000 and the said application was not moved immediately thereafter. Thirdly, the Revenue Court does not have the power to cancel and set aside the Patta. Fourthly, as there was a disputed question of fact whether the land in dispute belonged to the Revenue Guest House or not, the same could be looked into only by a Civil Court. Therefore, the revision under Sec. 97 was not even maintainable. Fifthly, the land in question, in fact, is a Abadi land and the Gram Panchayat has ample power to allot the said land under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (The Rules', for short). Sixthly, the procedure established by law under Rules 140 to 168 of the Rules have been followed in the present case. Therefore, the learned Collector erred in observing that the plot has been allotted in violation of the Rules 140 to 168 of the Rules. Lastly, along with the case of the petitioner, fifteen other applications were entertained by the Gram Panchayat and the land was allotted to others. Thus, while others are still enjoying the peaceful possession of the land so allotted to them, the petitioner's possession and ownership has been disturbed.