IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER (1) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3990/2001 Chiranji Lal Versus State of Rajasthan and others (2) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3856/2001 Prabhu Versus State of Rajasthan and others (3) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3991/2001 Hajari Versus State of Rajasthan and others (4) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3992/2001 Kalyan Versus State of Rajasthan and others (5) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3993/2001 Laxmi Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan and others (6) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4259/2001 Chotya Versus State of Rajasthan and others (7) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4323/2001 Jai Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan and others DATE OF ORDER --- April 15,2010 PRESENT HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.D.D.Khandelwal, for the petitioners Mr.J.P.Gupta, for the respondent Mr.Manoj Pareek with Ms.Rani Bhandari, for the respondents No.3&4 BY THE COURT
(1) In all the aforesaid seven writ petitions, which have been filed challenging the common order dated 20.6.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Dausa, similar questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the same have been clubbed together and are being decided together.
(2) For deciding the controversy involved in this bunch of writ petitions, the facts of CWP No. 3990/2001 Chiranji Lal V. State of Rajasthan and others are being taken.
(3) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and vide Resolution No.7 dated 6.1.1983, he had been granted Patta of the land measuring 30′ x 15′, totalling to 450 sq.ft. Thereafter, possession was given to the petitioner and since then, he is in continuous possession and part construction has also been made on the land in dispute.
(4) The respondents No.3 and 4, with the motive to dispossess from the land in dispute, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sikrai, Distt. Dausa, against the petitioner and his six other neighbourers. The application for temporary injunction (T.I.No.17/99) was rejected on 20.12.2000. After a period of eighteen years, revision was filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 challenging the aforesaid Resolution No.7 dated 6.1.83.
(5) The petitioner raised several preliminary objections, more particularly, regarding rejection of application for temporary injunction and pendency of the civil suit therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable. The petitioner has also raised the objection that the revision was barred by limitation and even if, no limitation is prescribed, then also, there is an inordinate delay of eighteen years on the part of the respondents No.3 and 4 in filing the revision petition.
(6) Similar are the facts of other revision petitions filed before the Additional Collector, Dausa.
(7) The Additional Collector called for the record twice but the record was not produced by the Gram Panchayat and it appears that he drew adverse inference against the petitioners. The Additional Collector vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.6.2001 rejected the aforesaid preliminary objection and on merit, held that Rules 257 to 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 have not been followed and further held that the premises in dispute are situated where the public fair of Bhomiya Ji is held every year.
(8) It is further stated in the writ petition that the impugned judgment dated 20.6.2001 is not legal and valid and there is no satisfactory explanation for filing the revision petition after eighteen years and further the Gram Panchayat did not produce the record in collusion with the respondents No.3 and 4 for which the petitioners cannot be punished.
(9) Respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat, Manpur, Distt. Dausa filed reply and denied the allegations of collusion for not producing the record, with the further submission that the Gram Panchayat is treating the parties equally.
(10) The respondents No.3 and 4 have not filed reply to the writ petition.
(11) Submission of counsel for the petitioners is that there is an inordinate delay of eighteen years in filing the revision petition by the respondents No.3 and 4, and on the ground of delay, the revision petition deserved to be not entertained and the aforesaid preliminary objection has been wrongly rejected and further, on account of pendency of the civil suit filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 Ramesh Chand and Banwari Lal respectively, the revision was not maintainable.
(12) On merit, the submission of counsel for the petitioners is that the record was not produced by the Gram Panchayat in collusion with the respondents No. 3 and 4 and with an intention to harm the petitioners.
(13) Submission of counsel for the respondent No.2 is that there was no alleged collusion between the Gram Panchayat and the respondents No.3 and 4 for non production of record.
(14) It is stated at the bar by the counsel that civil suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 has been dismissed in default on 5.7.2001.
(15) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submission of counsel for the parties.
(16) The Gram Panchayat has not given any explanation even before this Court for non production of the record before the Additional Collector and further, the respondents No.3 and 4 filed no document proving the fact that the land was allotted in the area where public fair of Bhomiyaji is held every year. The Additional Collector committed an error in first, drawing adverse inference against the petitioners for non production of the record by the Gram Panchayat, without there being any fault on the part of the petitioners which has resulted in injustice to the petitioners. Moreover, the objection of inordinate delay of eighteen years in filing the revision petition by the respondents No.3 and 4 has not been properly considered and ultimately rejected.
(17) In view of the above, the judgment of the Additional Collector, Dausa, dated 20.6.2001 is contrary to law relating to drawing adverse inference against the petitioners who are not in possesison of the relevant record and further finding on the violation of Rules 257 to 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules,1961 without perusal of the record is perverse. Therefore, I deem it proper to quash and set aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 20.6.2001 and remand all the aforesaid cases to the Additional Collector, Dausa with a direction to the Gram Panchayat, Manpur to produce the file containing the Resolution No.7 dated 6.1.1983, in pursuance to which the Pattas were issued on 7.1.1983 to each of the petitioners.
(18) Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned common judgment and order dated 20.6.2001 is quashed and set aside and the Gram Panchayat, Manpur, Distt.Dausa is directed to produce the file containing the Resolution No.7 dated 6.1.1983, in pursuance to which the Pattas were issued on 7.1.1983 to each of the petitioners, before the Additional Collector, Dausa. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector, Dausa with a direction to decide the same in accordance with law after receipt of record from the Gram Panchayat, Manpur, Distt.Dausa.
(Prem Shanker Asopa) J.
??pa?