1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7815/2009 (Sardar Singh Vs. State & ors.) Date of Order :: 3rd August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. N.A. Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court does not find even a wee bit of justification to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner is defending a revision petition as pending before the Collector, Pali bearing No.16/2005 wherein a patta granted by the Gram Panchayat in his favour has been put to question. The petitioner moved an application before the Revisional Authority with the submissions that the concerned Gram Panchayat has not produced the relevant 'proceedings register' in relation to the patta in question and in the absence of this register, the legality of the patta could not be examined; and for want of the said register, the revision petition be rejected. The learned Revisional Authority has proceeded to reject the application so moved by its impugned order dated 16.07.2009 with the observations, inter alia, that these were the proceedings under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act of 1994'); and that the concerned Gram Panchayat, while expressing 2 unavailability of the register has otherwise sent the concerning file, the Patta Bahi etc. The learned Revisional Authority also observed that the matter could be decided on the basis of the proceedings as available in the concerning case file and the revision petition could not be dismissed only for the proceedings register having not been produced. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and it has strenuously been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for want of the proceedings register, the validity and legality of the proceedings in relation to the patta granted to the petitioner cannot at all be examined; and the learned Revisional Authority had been in error in observing that the matter could be decided merely on the basis of the case file of the Panchayat. The learned counsel submitted that under Section 97 of the Act of 1994, the authority is obliged to requisition the record before taking a decision and the learned Revisional Authority has acted illegally in not requisitioning the complete record. The learned counsel also referred to the requirements as contained in the First Schedule to the Act of 1994 to submit that it is incumbent for the Panchayat to maintain the proceedings register. The submissions aforesaid do not make out any case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Revisional Authority has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter 3 before it and when it was pointed out by the Panchayat concerned that the concerned 'proceedings register' was not available, the observations as made by the learned Revisional Authority in its order dated 16.07.2009 remain unexceptionable. It cannot be said that the Revisional Authority has not requisitioned the relevant record. As to what record is to be perused for arriving at a just decision is the matter for the Revisional Authority to consider but it was entirely baseless a proposition stated on behalf of the petitioner that the revision petition itself be dismissed for want of the proceedings register. Having examined the material placed on the record of this petition and the proposition as suggested on behalf of the petitioner, prima facie, an impression is created that the petitioner only intends to prolong the proceedings one way or the other. The Revisional Authority shall be justified in saddling the petitioner with costs, if any as such other proposition is put by the petitioner , intended at delaying the proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands rejected. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Revisional Authority. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK