1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.693/2008 (Gopa Ram Devasi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 19.8.2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Dr. P.S. Bhati, for the appellants. Heard Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal is directed against order dated 27.5.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in its writ jurisdiction whereby and whereunder the writ application was summarily dismissed. It appears that the writ petitioners filed a revision application before the concerned authority under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) for cancellation of Patta issued in favour of respondents No.4,5 & 6 in the year 2004. The Additional Collector, Pali, while exercising power under Section 97 of the Act, dismissed the revision application holding that the private respondents were in possession of the land in question for more than 30 years and after adopting the procedure for settlement of the land in question, Patta was issued in their favour. 2 The order passed by the concerned authority, however, was affirmed by this Court while dismissing the writ application. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the land in question since being 'Aakharia' land, could not have been settled by granting Patta in favour of respondents No.4,5 & 6, without public notice and scrutiny of the matter. It is further submitted that the land in question is pasture land and the villagers had right over the same but the authorities issued the Patta in favour of the respondents No.4,5 & 6 without adopting procedure for such settlement and without any public notice. On question as to locus standi of the writ-petitioner appellants, the learned counsel submitted that since the land in question was utilized by the villagers, they had right to challenge the Patta by way of revision under Section 97 of the Act. Section 97 of the Act reads as under : “ 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 of 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 3 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 pass accordingly.” The word as referred to in Section 97 of the Act, “any person interested” must be read as the person actually aggrieved by any order or decision rendered by the Panchayati Raj Institutions and thus he may invoke jurisdiction of the authorities under Section 97 of the Act. The petitioners, as it appears from the materials on record, were not the persons aggrieved inasmuch as at that point of time they had not applied for settlement of the land in question nor they had objected to the said settlement in favour of the respondents No.4,5 & 6. Rather, it appears that the writ petitioners-appellants in the capacity of the villagers invoked jurisdiction of the authorities under Section 97 of the Act. The said application under Section 97 of the Act therefore, was not maintainable at the behest of the villagers by way of PIL. More so, it appears from the materials on record that the private respondents were in possession of the land in question since more than 30 years and the 'Patta' was issued in their favour after 4 holding inquiry including inspection of the site, which was inspected by three Ward Panchas of the Panchayat and the statements of two witnesses were recorded with regard to old possession and under Rule 157(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, it was found appropriate to grant Patta for the land over which the private respondents were in possession for last 30 years. For the reasons aforementioned therefore, the Additional Collector and also the learned Single Judge of this Court were wholly justified in dismissing the revision application and the writ application and the orders, therefore, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (NARAYAN ROY) C.J. vij