// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5851/2007 Dhanna Ram S/o late Shri Chhote Lal Versus The Gram Panchayat, Kankaria, District Jhunjhunu through its Sarpanch and Others Date of Order ::: 11.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri M.M. Ranjan, Counsel for petitioner Shri R.S. Rathore, Additional Government Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.4 #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri R.S. Rathore, Additional Government Counsel appears for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Ajay Gupta, Advocate, appears for the respondent No.4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The land, in dispute, is 40'x 10' i.e. 400 square feet, for which a sale-deed was executed on 21st January, 2006 in favour of the petitioner by Gram Panchayat, Kankaria, Panchayat Samiti Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent No.4 Gajanand filed an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti Khetri. The Administrative & Establishment Committee of Panchayat Samiti // 2 // Khetri, vide its Resolution No.3 dated 12th July, 2006, set-aside the sale-deed/'patta' executed by Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the same, a revision was preferred by the petitioner but the same was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Jhunjhunu, vide its order dated 27th June, 2007. Hence this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land, in dispute, was sold to the petitioner by Gram Panchayat Kankaria by executing a sale-deed, a copy of which has been placed on the record as Annexure-7, and thereafter the appellate authority i.e. Panchayat Samiti Khetri, without notice to him, cancelled the 'patta' issued in his favour. The revisional court did not consider the said submission that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority was violative of principles of natural justice. He further contended that the revisional court remained under the impression that the disputed land is 10'x 40' i.e. 400 square yard, whereas the disputed land is only 400 square feet i.e. 10'x40', for which the 'patta' was issued. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that the Gram Panchayat wrongly // 3 // issued 'patta' in favour of the petitioner. He also referred Annexure-R-4-5, a copy of Resolution dated 20th March, 2005 and other documents to the effect that the Resolution was passed by Gram Panchayat to remove possession of the petitioner. He contended that the appellate authority was fully justified in rejecting the 'patta'/sale-deed executed by Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner. The learned Additional Government Counsel defended the impugned order. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders passed by Panchayat Samiti as well as Additional Collector along-with documents annexed with the writ petition and the reply thereto filed on behalf of the respondent No.4. The disputed land is only 400 square feet i.e. 10x40 and not 400 square yard, as mentioned by the Additional Collector in its order dated 27th November, 2007. The Gram Panchayat Kankaria passed a Resolution to sell the disputed land to the petitioner and, in pursuance thereto, executed a 'patta'/sale-deed dated 21st January, 2006. From the Resolution No.3 dated 12th July, 2006 (Annexure-11) passed by the Panchayat Samiti, it is clear that there // 4 // is no reference that any notice was given of the appeal filed by respondent No.4 Gajanand to the present petitioner. It appears that the Administrative & Establishment Committee of Panchayat Samiti did not issue any notice of appeal and, by way of the Resolution, took a decision that 'patta', which has been issued by Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner Dhanna Ram is cancelled. The order passed by Panchayat Samiti appears to be in violation of of principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules. The Additional Collector did not consider the said submission of the petitioner and wrongly rejected the revision petition filed by him. In these circumstances, it is clear that the orders passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Panchayat Samiti as well as the revisional authority i.e. Additional Collector both cannot be allowed to be sustained being violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12th July, 2006 (Annexure-11) passed by the Panchayat Samiti Khetri and the Order dated 27th June, 2007 (Annexure-14) passed by the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu, are set-aside. The case is remitted back to the Panchayat // 5 // Samiti Khetri to hear and decide the appeal filed by respondent No.4 Gajanand afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Dhanna Ram, in whose favour the sale-deed was executed by Gram Panchayat. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.4, both, are directed to appear before the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Khetri, on 13th October, 2008, who shall place the appeal for hearing before the appellate authority i.e. Panchayat Samiti Khetri as soon as possible. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal at the earliest but not later than four months from today. Costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//