1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R 1. Reva VS. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3171/2005 2. Eda Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3145/2005 3. LRs of Samariya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3151/2005 4. Bhabuta Vs. State of Rajasthan and others S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3191/2005 Date of order : 12th February, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSITCE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Shambhoo Singh for the petitioners. Mr. Alkesh Agarwal, Dy. Government Advocate. --------- BY THE COURT:- 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners belonging to Gadoliya Luhar community, who have claimed that they were issued pattas for the land for which they were in possession for a number of years by Gram Panchayat Bhawari, the respondent No.4. The said pattas were cancelled upon revision petition filed by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat by the impugned order of Collector, Sirohi vide order dated 27.3.2003. 2/5 2. While disposing of similar writ petition namely CW No.1620/2005 – Joga Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. on 1.8.2006, this Court passed the following order:- “Date : 01.08.2006 HON'BLE MR. BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. Mr. Shambhu Singh for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob, Dy. G.A. = = = = Heard. The finding of the Collector is that those who have been allotted land were not living there. The scheme of the allotment was specially for the Gadia Lohar community. According to the revisional order, there are only six families who are living there. In view of the fact that there had been a tradition in the Gadia Lohar community that they do not choose to become a permanent resident of a place, the finding does not appear to be misplaced. However, the Collector, Sirohi will appoint a senior officer to go into the details and if those families who are living in Sirohi today assure the Collector that they will continue to live there, appropriate action will be taken for allotting them appropriate land. A report to this effect be filed within four weeks. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (BHAGWATI PRASAD),J.” 3/5 3. After the aforesaid order dated 1.8.2006, other writ petitions have remained pending and despite direction of this Court in one of the writ petitions namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3171/2005 Reva Vs. State on 14.11.2007 directing the State Government to produce the relevant record and report of the Collector, Sirohi as directed by this Court earlier on 1.8.2006. Despite these directions and directions already given on 1.8.2006, no such report of Collector, Sirohi has been produced by the State Government before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shambhoo Singh has urged that since pattas were rightly issued in favour of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons earlier the Surpanch of Gram Panchayat could not file revision petition and, therefore, the Collector, Sirohi has erred in cancelling those pattas vide order dated 27.3.2003. 5. He has further submitted that merely because the Collector, Sirohi has failed to give a report in pursuance of directions of this Court, the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer and their cancellation of pattas deserve to be set aside. 6. These prayers are opposed by Mr. Agarwal, learned 4/5 Dy. Government Advocate for the State. He submits that the petitioners have no right over the land in question and as a matter of fact, the land in question was decided to be allocated for raising a primary school in the said village by the Gram Panchayat. He has supported the order of the learned Collector cancelling these pattas. 7. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be said to have any right over the land in question which is alleged to be in their possession for some number of years. They belonging to a community which inherently has practice of not staying for long at one place and this was clearly observed by this Court while deciding the writ petition No.1620 of 2005 on 1.8.2006. Despite directions of this Court, if the Collector has failed to give any report in the matter or a report of a Senior Officer as directed by this Court, this Court cannot wait endlessly for such report. No other right in land has been shown by the petitioner. The reasons given by the Collector, Sirohi in the impugned order cancelling such pattas are found to cogent and reasonable. Therefore, this Court finds no force in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. 8. However, if the petitioners can establish their claim 5/5 by making a representation before the competent authority of the State Government and if the State Government decides to allot them some portion of Government land at the given place or any other place in the said area, it is for the said competent authority of the State Government to decide such representations. 9. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are dismissed. No orders as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.59 to 62 babulal/-