Near Balaji Mandir, Patrakar Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur. vs Gram Panchayat Jaisinghpura, Presently Madau,

Judgment

1. Gram Panchayat Jaisinghpura, Presently Madau, Panchayat Samiti Sanganer, District Jaipur Through Sarpanch.

2. Gram Panchayat Jaisinghpura, Presently Madau, Panchayat Samiti Sanganer, Jaipur Through Village Development Officer, Aditya Sharma.

3. Ramu S/o Lalaram Balai, R/o Village Mohanpura, Near Balaji Mandir, Patrakar Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mithlesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order 26/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Collector-I, Jaipur by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act of 1994’) has been rejected.

2. By filing a revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994, the petitioner assailed the validity of the patta dated

20.12.2004 issued in favour of the respondent No.3 by the Gram Panchayat. (2 of 7) [CW-11620/2025]

3. It was case of the petitioner before the Revisional Court that the patta was issued in violation of the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petition submitted by the petitioner was not decided on its merits, but the same was rejected on a technical count that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the revision petition as he is an aggrieved person and he can approach competent Court for redressal of his grievances. Learned counsel submits that an appeal can be preferred under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 only by a person aggrieved, not by a person interested. Counsel submits that only the person interested has the remedy of filing revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994, as this view has been taken by this Court in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. Mahendra Singh and Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8185/2025. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

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

6. Perusal of the record indicates that patta bearing No.38 dated 20.12.2004 issued in favour of respondent No.3 has been assailed before the Court of Additional District Collector. The revision petition submitted by the petitioner has not been decided and adjudicated on its merits, rather the same has been rejected on a technical count that the petitioner is not interested person, (3 of 7) [CW-11620/2025] hence, he has no right to file revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994. A liberty has been granted to the petitioner to approach the competent Court for redressal of his grievances.

7. The issue involved in this petition is no more res integra, as this issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Nagar Mal vs. Addl. District Collector, Sikar and Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1106/2012 and Khusal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.57/2020, wherein it has been held by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court that the revision petition is maintainable under Section 97, if the same is preferred by the person interested and the appeal can be preferred under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 by a person aggrieved.

8. Following the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Khusal Singh (supra) and Nagar Mal (supra), this Court held in the case of Amit Kumar (supra) in para Nos.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 as under: “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 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 (4 of 7) [CW-11620/2025] 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, reconsideration, it may pass order accordingly: Provided that the State Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless such party has a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (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 reversed or remitted (5 of 7) [CW-11620/2025] 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 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 (6 of 7) [CW-11620/2025] is no sub delegation on account of fiction created by the definition of Collector, whereby, term Collector includes Addi. Collector as well. In view thereof, rejection of petitioner's objection pertaining to jurisdiction of Addl. Collector cannot be faulted. 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 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 (7 of 7) [CW-11620/2025] 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.”

9. Considering the law propounded by this Court in the above noted case, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view.

10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Collector stands quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional District Collector for adjudication of the revision petition on its merits.

11. It is expected from the Revisional Court to decide the revision petition submitted by the petitioner on its merits, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties.

12. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Ashu/34 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J