Khetri District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) v. Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

6. Shri Nagar Mal S/o Shri Jamna Lal R/o Village and post Papoorna, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma with Mr. Lakhan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Gurjar Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 02.06.2003 passed by the Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajashtan, by which the revision petition submitted by the respondent No.6 under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act of 1994’) has been allowed and the matter has been remitted (2 of 5) [CW-5512/2007] back to the Standing Committee of Zila Parishad to re hear the matter and decide it afresh again.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an illegal patta was issued in favour of the respondent No.6 without following the process of law by the Gram Panchayat. The aforesaid patta issued by the said Panchayat was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal under Section 61 before the Block Development Officer/Standing Committee, Panchayat Samiti, Khetri. Counsel submits that the said appeal submitted by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 07.08.2000 and the patta was cancelled. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order passed by the Standing Committee was assailed by the respondent No.6 by way of filing revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 before the Court of District Collector, Jhunjhunu, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 31.07.2001.

3. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order dated

31.07.2001 was again assailed by the respondent No.6 by way of filing one more revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 and this revision petition has been allowed vide impugned order dated 02.06.2003 and the matter has been remanded back to the Standing Committee of Zila Parishad to re-hear the matter under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 and to pass fresh orders. Counsel submits that under the Act of 1994, there is no provision for filing two revision petitions. Once the revisional jurisdiction was availed by the respondent No.6 by way of filing a revision petition under Section 97 before the District Collector, there was no reason (3 of 5) [CW-5512/2007] or occasion available with the respondent No.6 to file second revision petition, hence, the order dated 02.06.2003 passed by the State is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

4. In addition, counsel for the petitioner submits that even after remand of the matter, when the matter was not decided by the authority concerned, the petitioner approached the Department of Panchayati Raj for seeking appropriate directions to the District Collector to re-hear and decide the matter afresh, but the Collector has refused to pass the order and even the Appellate Authority has not decide the matter. Counsel submits that in fact under Section 61 of the Act of 1994, the Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti is competent to pass appropriate orders. It is not the Standing Committee of Zila Parishad, who is competent to pass appropriate orders, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has filed this successive petition with regard to the same grievance which was raised by the petitioner in earlier round of litigation by way of filing a petition before this Court assailing validity of the order dated

02.06.2003 passed by the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan. Counsel submits that the Government has simply remanded the matter back to the Standing Committee for its fresh disposal and till date, no (4 of 5) [CW-5512/2007] fresh orders have been passed by the Standing Committee, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

7. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan vide its order dated 02.06.2003 has remanded the matter back to the Standing Committee of Zila Parishad to re-hear the matter and pass fresh orders within a period of 30 days, in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid order passed by the Department of Panchayati Raj needs slight correction and modification, because under Section 61 of the Act of 1994, the appeal against the allotment of patta lies with the Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti, not before Zila Parishad, that is why, the petitioner assailed the patta issued in favour of the respondent No.6 before the said Committee of Panchayat Samiti and the said appeal was allowed and the patta in question was cancelled. The matter was required to be remanded to the Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti, not Zila Parishad.

8. Hence, in view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by making correction/modification in the order dated 02.06.2003.

9. The Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti, Khetri is directed to re-hear the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 and decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible, after hearing arguments of (5 of 5) [CW-5512/2007] both sides, preferably within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/61