1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4515/1996
(Devilal & others Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.)
Date of Order :: 3rd March 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.V.K.Aggarwal for the petitioners
Mr.K.K.Bissa ) for the respondents
Mr.Kamal Deep Singh )
for Mr.Kulwant Singh )
BY THE COURT:
By way of this writ petition, challenge is given to the
order dated 06.02.1996 as passed by the Additional Collector
(Administration), Sriganganagar while dismissing Panchayat
Revision Petition No.8/1996.
By filing the revision petition aforesaid on 12.09.1994,
the petitioners questioned the allotment of plots Nos.415 and
416 by Gram Panchayat, Mirjewala to the wife of the Sarpanch
of the said Panchayat (respondent No.4 herein) essentially on
the grounds that the allotment was made without following the
procedure prescribed by the Rules and that the land in
question was a part of public way. It was contended on
behalf of the allottee before the Revisional Authority that in its
meeting dated 07.12.1979 that was presided by the Up-
Sarpanch, the Panchayat adopted the resolution whereby 27
2
plots were allotted and therein, allotment was also made in her
favour on the price of Rs.200/-that was the same as charged
in relation to the other plots of land and sanction was also
obtained from the Assistant Collector, Sriganganagar. It was
also contended that there was no proof about the land in
question being a part of public road; that allotments were
made 17 years back and if at all it were a part of public land,
the dispute would have arisen long before. It was further
contended that the allotments were made duly in accordance
with law and the petition had been filed with oblique intentions.
The learned Additional Collector proceeded to reject the
revision petition so filed by the present petitioners on the
consideration that the land was allotted by way of open auction
wherein the non-applicant had been the highest bidder; and
about 27 plots were auctioned on the given date and the price
in relation to other plots was nearly the same and that no
irregularity was noticed in the matter. The learned Additional
Collector said,-
”हमन उभयपक क बहस पर मनन ककय । पत वल
तथ अध . नय य लय ग म पच यत क ररक र# क
अवल$कन ककय त$ प य कक ववव द’त भ(खर श मतत
कसर क$ ख,ल तनल म म- ववकय कर आवटन ककय
गय ह2 । इन भ(खर क उचचतम ब$ल अप थ6य
क रह ह2 । उस र$ज ग म पच यत न 27 भ(खर
क तनल म क ह2 । उनक र श9 भ लगभग इतन
ह2 । सभ भ(खर पर खर ” र क बबज ह2 । जजसम-
अप थ6य भ एक ह2 । ग म पच यत द र आवटन
ककय गय भ(खर म- क$ई अतनयशमतत प य ज न
पत त नह ह$त ह2 ।
3
अत: तनगर न कत # क तनगर न स रह न ह$न क
क रण ख ररज क ज त ह2 । व ग म पच यत क
आ’9 7-12-79 बह ल रख ज त ह2 । तनण#य क
एक पतत मय ररक र# अध . नय य लय ग म पच यत
शमज@व ल क$ पवAत क ज व ।”
The order aforesaid has been questioned in this writ
petition with the submissions that it suffers from errors
apparent on the face of record; that the learned Additional
Collector has not examined the entire material available on
record; that the resolution dated 07.12.1979 seems to have
been scored out as would appear from the photostat certified
copy supplied to the petitioners (Annex.3); that there had not
been any compliance of the requirements of the Rules like
preparation of plan, site inspection, publication of notice,and
invitation of objections etc. It is submitted that the resolution
dated 07.12.1979 cannot be said to be existing in law and
approval of sale as allegedly made on 17.01.1983 cannot be
said to be justified. It is also submitted that the revision petition
was filed only upon the petitioners’ coming to know of the
allotment when the adopted son of Sarpanch Sukh Ram
attempted to raise construction on the disputed plot.
Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents
that the respondent No.4 had purchased the abadi land in
open auction on the basis of the highest bid and the land has
rightly been transferred to her; that there is no illegality or
impropriety in the order particularly when 27 plots were put to
4
auction and price of other plots is almost equal to the auction
price paid by the respondent No.4.
Having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire
matter, this Court is clearly of opinion that the cursory order
(Annex.6) as passed by the learned Additional Collector in
disposal of the revision petition cannot be approved.
As noticed above, the essential considerations weighing
with the learned Revisional Authority had been that the plot
was allotted in open auction and the respondent No.4 had
been the highest bidder; and that the Panchayat had
auctioned 27 plots and price in relation to other plots was also
about the same. However, a fundamental snag is noticed in
the matter that the respondent No.4 has been allotted not one
but two plots of land bearing Nos.415 and 416. If at all it be
assumed that there had been auction proceedings and
different plots of land were allotted by way of such auction, it
has not been given out as to what had been the
measurements of the other plots put to auction and if the other
bidders put their bids in relation to one plot of land or more?
Then, The resolution dated 07.12.1979 is lacking in material
particulars about identification numbers and measurements of
the plots so auctioned and their location. It is also noticed
from the resolution dated 07.12.1979 that in relation to at least
one person Shishpal Singh son of Balraj, the auction price is
5
stated at Rs.500/-. It was seriously questionable if the
respondent No.4 extended the bid for one plot or more? The
fact could not have been ignored altogether that the
questioned allotment had been to none other than wife of the
then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat; and it is also
noteworthy that on the basis of the resolution dated
07.12.1979, the patta came to be issued only in the year 1983.
. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances,
this Court is clearly of opinion that the consideration of the
revision petition as filed by the petitioners by the Revisional
Authority has fallen short of the requirements of adequate
adjudication of the questions calling for determination with
reference to the relevant record; and of the decision of the
matter by a reasoned and speaking order.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of opinion that it
shall be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned
order and to restore the said revision petition to the file of
Additional Collector (Administration), Sriganganagar for
disposal in accordance with law after examining the concerned
record and after extending adequate opportunity of hearing to
the concerned parties; and by way of a reasoned speaking
order.
In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed
to the extent indicated above; the impugned order dated
6
06.02.1996 (Annex.6) is quashed and set aside; Panchayat
Revision Petition No.8/1996 shall stand restored to the file of
the Additional Collector (Administration), Sriganganagar who
shall re-consider and decide the same in accordance with law
while keeping in view the observations foregoing. The parties
through their counsel present before this Court shall stand at
notice to appear before the said Revisional Authority on
02.04.2009.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the
parties are left to bear their own costs of this writ petition.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
MK