RAM DAS Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITHOUT State of Rajasthan being party respondent in this writ petition the petition is required to be dismissed. Apart from that, on merits also the petitioner has no case. The petitioner claims himself to be a 'Sadhu' and also claims the property which belongs to public institution. On the basis of long possession the petitioner claims that the allotment made in 1997 in his favour cannot be cancelled in an appeal which is filed after 11 years. The contention was that the Addl. Distt. Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal.

(2.) FROM the order of learned Addl. District Collector, it is clear that petitioner could manage to get Patta with collusion of the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. This fact came to the notice of the respondent No. 3 only on 18.11.1988 when they came to know about selling of 'Dharamshala', from the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. On the knowledge, immediately, the appeal was filed and the Additional District Collector found that the then Sarpanch made the allotment on 28.10.1987 without being known to anyone in a fraudulent manner. Before allowing the appeal and cancelling the order passed by the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat dated 20.10.1987, the learned Addl. District Collector himself visited the site and had spot inspection. He found that it was a public place and it should be allotted to religious institution. In view of the above, the contention regarding gross delay of 11 years has no substance as the appeal was filed immediately within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the order. Even if the appeal was filed late then also on the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that learned Addl District Collector was fully justified in entertaining the appeal on merits and setting aside the order of allotment passed in favour of the petitioner in 1987.Such person, who in collusion with the authority manage to get the allotment have no right to say that they are in possession of the premises nearly for 11 of 12 years and on that ground they cannot submit that their possession should be protected by the Court. Equity is also not in favour of the petitioner.