GUMAN DAN Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR BARMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 14. 10. 79, the respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted an application for grant of patta for the land in question before the Sarpanch of the respondent No. 2 Gram Panchayat (Annex. 1 ). Mauka report was signed by two Panchas and Sarpanch under Rule 258 (2) of Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules, 1961 (for short `the Rules') (Annex. 2) wherein there is a clear reference regarding old possession of the respondents No. 3 and 4. Application for grant of patta submitted by the respondents No. 3 and 4 was granted and the patta issued by the respondent No. 2 Gram Panchayat on 22. 6. 81. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner challenged that before the Additional Collector in 1995 by way of revision under Rule 272 of the Rules and under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the Act' ). Thus, admittedly, the grant of patta in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4 was challenged by the present petitioner before the Additional Collector in revision after a gross delay of fourteen years.

(2.) THE above revision petition No. 11/95 filed by the present petitioner against the grant of patta by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4, came to be allowed by the Additional Collector by his order dated 29. 8. 95 (Annex. 4 ). Against this order at Annex. 4, the present respondents No. 3 and 4 filed review petition No. 159/95 before the learned Additional Collector who by his order dated 2. 7. 96 (Annex. 5) allowed the review petition and rejected his earlier order dated 29. 8. 95 (Annex. 4) passed in revision petition No. 11/95 and further ordered that the revision petition No. 11/95 is restored to its original number and it will be heard on merits again. This order dated 2. 6. 96 (Annex. 5) passed by the learned Additional Collector allowing the review petition filed by the present respondents No. 3 and 4 has been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) BEFORE parting, I must state that the Additional Collector has passed the earlier order in the revision petition and subsequently reviewed the same by his impugned order Annex. 5 in his capacity as the agent/delegate of the State of Rajasthan. It is time and again held that in absence of State of Rajasthan being there as party respondent, no writ of certiorari can be issued when the order passed by its own officers or agents are challenged and questioned in the writ petition, therefore, on this ground also, this petition was required to be dismissed as the State of Rajasthan was not joined as party respondent in this petition.