Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu v. Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District

Judgment

1. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Surendra S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

3. Ramdev Singh S/o Jhabarmal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

4. Gram Panchayat Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8189/2025

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Smt. Sharmila W/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus

1. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Surendra S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

3. Gram Panchayat Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents (2 of 11) [CW-8185/2025] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8177/2025 Sharmila W/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus

1. Mahendra Singh S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Surendra S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu

3. Gram Panchayat Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8181/2025 Rajpal S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus

1. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Surendra S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

3. Gram Panchayat Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8182/2025 Bhanwari Devi W/o Shri Rajpal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus

1. Mahendra Singh S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District (3 of 11) [CW-8185/2025] Jhunjhunu.

2. Surendra S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

3. Gram Panchayat Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8184/2025 Anil Kumar S/o Shri Pyarelal Baloda, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus

1. Mahendra Singh S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Surendra S/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu.

3. Gram Panchayat Naand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat for Mr. David Mehla JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/05/2025

2. The defect(s) pointed out by the Office stand waived. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and all these petitions are being decided by this common order. (4 of 11) [CW-8185/2025]

3. For the sake of convenience the facts pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8181/2025 are taken into consideration.

4. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer: "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2025 passed by Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu in Revision Petition No. 10/2023 titled Mahendra Singh Vs. Rajpal & ors. and further be pleased to dismiss the Revision Petition No. 10/2023 preferred by the respondent No. 1 with all consequential effects. (ii) Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

5. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu, by which the revision petition submitted by the respondents has been allowed and the patta issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.

6. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that after following due process of law contained under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'), patta of the land in question was issued in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the respondents claiming themselves as persons aggrieved and being part of the family submitted, a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994') before the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu assailing the validity of the patta issued by Gram Panchayat (5 of 11) [CW-8185/2025] Nand, Tehsil Bisau, District Jhunjhunu. Counsel submits that the said revision petition submitted by the respondent was allowed and the patta issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Counsel submits that the revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 was not maintainable, as the same can be submitted only by the person interested and not by the person aggrieved. Counsel submits that anyone whosoever is aggrieved by any order passed by the Gram Panchayat, can file an appeal under Section 61 of the Act of

1994. Counsel submits that in the memo of revision petition, the respondent has shown himself as person aggrieved, even then, instead of preferring any appeal under Section 61 of the Act of 1994, a revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 was submitted, which was in fact not maintainable, even then, the same was entertained by the Revisional Authority and the patta issued in favour of the petitioner has cancelled. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Khusal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.57/2020) on 14.01.2020 and Nagar Mal Vs. Addl. District Collector, Sikar and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1106/2012) on

30.07.2012. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that without following due process of law as contained under the provisions of Rules of 1996, the patta was (6 of 11) [CW-8185/2025] illegally issued in favour of the petitioner, by the concerned Gram Panchayat. Counsel submits that the land in question is the ancestral property and patta of the same cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner and these facts were well appreciated by the Revisional Authority and accordingly, a reasoned and speaking order has been passed. Counsel submits that as per the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nagar Mal (supra), it has categorically been held by this Court that the revision petition is maintainable under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 in such like matters, because the provisions contained under the said section deals with gross illegalities committed by not following the statutory provisions, hence, under these circumstances, the revision petition was maintainable before the Additional District Collector and the same was rightly entertained. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and these petitions are liable to be rejected.

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

9. A technical objection about maintainability of the revision petition before the Revisional Authority has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per him, revision could be preferred only by the person interested, under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 and the appeal would be preferred by the person aggrieved, under Section 61 of the Act of 1994. For (7 of 11) [CW-8185/2025] ready reference, the extract of the provisions contained under Section 61 and 97 of the Act of 1994 is reproduced as under: “Sec. 61. Appeals from orders of Panchayats.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any order or direction of a Panchayats made or issued under this Act or under any rule or bye- law made thereunder may appeal from such order or direction to the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date of such order or direction exclusive of the time requisite for obtaining a copy thereof. (2) An appeal under Sub-sec. (1) shall be heard by the standing committee of the Panchayat Samiti constituted under Clause (a) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 56. (3) The standing committee referred to in Sub- sec. (2) may after hearing the person aggrieved, the Panchayat and any other person affected by the order or direction appealed against, vary, set aside or confirm such order or direction and may also award costs to or against the person filing the appeal. (4) The decision of the Standing Committee shall for the purposes be deemed to be the decision of the Panchayat Samiti. Sec.97. Power of revision and review by Government.- (1) The State Government may, either of its own motion or on an application from any person interested, call for and examine the record of a Panchayati Raj Institution or of a Standing Committee or Sub Committee thereof in respect of any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein or as to the regularity of such proceedings and, if in any case, it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may Provided that the pass order accordingly: State Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless such party has a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (8 of 11) [CW-8185/2025] (2) The State Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order prejudical to any party, pending the exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (3) The State Government may, of its own motion or on an application received from any reason interested, at any time within ninety days of the passing of an order under Sub sec. (1), review any such order if it was passed by it under any mistake, whether of fact or of law or in ignorance of any material fact. The provisions contained in the proviso to Sub-sec. (1) and in Sec. (2) shall apply to a proceeding under this sub-section.”

10. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes a clear difference in both the provisions. Appeal under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 can be submitted only by the person aggrieved and revision petition can be filed by the person interested under Section 97 of the Act of 1994. The interpretation of both these provisions has been discussed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the case of Khusal Singh (supra), wherein it has been held as under: “Reliance was placed on Manohar lal vs. District Collector, Barmer : 2015 (2) RRT 967 and Panna Lal & Anr. vs. Smt. Sushila Devi & Ors : 2018-19 (Supp.) RRT 125. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the Patta of land ad measuring 537.41 Sq. Yds. has been issued on which only a room ad measuring 10'x8' and two GLRS constructed by PHED are existing. The Addl. Collector has recorded a finding of fact that in the file pertaining to allotment, except for the map nowhere the measurements of the total area of land in question has been indicated and the same was missing from the record, which clearly indicates that the allotment in question, which (9 of 11) [CW-8185/2025] was apparently made beyond the limit prescribed under the Rules deliberately total area was not disclosed. The challenge laid pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Addl. Collector apparently has no substance as it is not disputed that the power of revision under Section 97 of the Act has been delegated to Collector by Notification dated 13/12/2004 and in terms of Section 2(vi) of the Act Collector of a District includes Addl. Collector and, therefore, the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the power once delegated to the Collector could not be further delegated has no substance inasmuch as there is no sub delegation on account of fiction created by the definition of Collector, whereby, term Collector well. Collector includes In view thereof, rejection of petitioner's objection pertaining to jurisdiction of Addl. Collector cannot be faulted. Addi. Insofar as the submissions made pertaining to setting aside of registered Patta is concerned, the judgment in the case of Manohar Lal (supra) has been considered by a subsequent Division Bench in Jhumar Ram vs. Addl. District Collector (Second), Jodhpur : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 656/2017 decided on15/12/2017. The Division Bench relying on the judgment in Kamla Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No.136/2017 decided on 27/3/2017 came to the conclusion that the Patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in contravention of Rules can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 97 of the Act. As such, the plea raised in this regard also has no substance. So far as the plea raised for the first time that in view of provisions of Section 61 of the Act and 166 of the Rules, the revision petition was not maintainable based on the judgment in the case of Panna Lal (supra) is concerned, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the remedy of appeal under Section 61 of the Act is available to a 'person aggrieved' by issuance of Patta, while revision petition under Section 97 of the Act can be filed by a 'person interested' and as 2 GLRs of the respondent No.3 is installed on the land in question, which is being used for supplying drinking water, the said respondent No.3 is clearly 'interested' in the land and cannot be said to be 'aggrieved' of the (10 of 11) [CW-8185/2025] allotment. Therefore, it cannot be said that appeal could have been filed against the allotment.”

11. Perusal of the memo of revision petition clearly indicates that the respondents are claiming themselves as family members of the petitioner and they are claiming their right over the property in question on the basis that the same is the ancestral property and patta of the same cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner. 12. This Court is not going to examine the merits and demerits of the case as to ‘whether the patta was rightly or wrongly issued in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat or not’. This Court is considering the technical objection only, i.e., ‘whether revision petition under Section 97 or appeal under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 is maintainable’.

13. Considering the law propounded in this regard by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Khusal Singh (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. The revision petition submitted by the respondent was not maintainable. The respondents could have submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 61 of the Act of 1994.

14. On this count alone, the orders passed by the Revisional Authority stands quashed and set-aside.

15. Accordingly, all the instant writ petitions stands allowed. (11 of 11) [CW-8185/2025]

16. Needless to observe that the respondents would be at liberty to file appeal under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 before the Appellate Authority.

17. In case, any appeal is preferred by the respondents before the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter, ignoring the period of limitation.

18. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/309,310,323,324,325&326