SBCWP NO.2877/01. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2877/2001. Ram Dhan Vs. Additional District Collector, Sikar & Ors. Date of order:- May 14, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajendra Prasad for petitioner. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Collector Sikar whereby revision petition filed by the private respondents was allowed and order passed by the Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti dated 11/6/1999 (by which appeal of the petitioner was allowed) and the order passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 26/10/1997 and notice thereupon issued on 10/9/1988 (by which penalty was imposed), were all set-aside. Gram Panchayat by the aforesaid order required the petitioner to remove his possession/encroachment from the disputed land on the complaint made by the private respondents. Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the SBCWP NO.2877/01. 2 Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti and the aforesaid order passed by the Gram Panchayat was set-aside. 2) Contention of Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner is that complainants were their relatives and as such they could not have any personal interest in the matter. Once decision was taken by the Gram Panchayat, it was for the Gram Panchayat to have defended its decision. Even if complainants were not heard by the Standing Committee of the Gram Panchayat, this could not be a reason to find fault with the order of the appellate authority i.e. the Standing Committee. Alternatively, it is submitted that even the learned Additional Collector had illegally held that complainants were required to be heard, proper course for it was to remand the matter to the appellate authority and not to restore the order passed by the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that as per his instructions, now the matter has been compromised between the parties before the civil court. 3) Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that since respondents No.4 and 5 were not afforded opportunity of hearing and were not even impleaded as party in the appeal before the SBCWP NO.2877/01. 3 Panchayat Samiti, learned Additional Collector was perfectly justified in setting aside the order passed by the Panchayat Samiti and that of Gram Panchayat. 4) Having regard to the facts of the case and considering the arguments aforesaid and upon perusal of the impugned orders, I find that learned revisional authority was persuaded to set-aside the order passed by the appellate authority precisely on the ground that private respondents at whose instance the orders impugned for removal of possession of petitioner were passed by the Gram Panchayat, were not impleaded as party and were not provided opportunity of hearing. It cannot be said that respondents No.4 and 5 were strangers to the dispute. Facts reveal that claim of the private respondents is on the disputed land disputedly owned by the petitioner as well as respondents and that petitioner by raising certain constructions now is creating obstruction in their right of use of land. 5) In the circumstances therefore direction of the learned Additional Collector Sikar in setting aside the order of the appellate authority i.e. Panchayat Samiti cannot be faulted. 6) Having heard learned counsel for the SBCWP NO.2877/01. 4 parties and perused the material on record, I further find that learned Additional Collector ought not to have straightway restored the orders passed by the Gram Panchayat and should have remanded the matter to the Panchayat Samiti for hearing and deciding the appeal afresh on merits. The order of the Additional Collector Sikar to that extent is liable to be set-aside. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. The order of the Additional Collector Sikar dated 14/9/2000 is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti with direction to revive the appeal filed by the petitioner and decide it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Petitioner would be at liberty to produce before the appellate authority the compromise deed, if at all, the matter has been compromised between the parties. The Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti would be entitled to take its own view of the matter. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil