IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7540 of 2006. Hanuman son of Shri Ram Karan and Others Versus The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others Date of Order ::: 28.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri K. L. Meena, Counsel for the petitioners. #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 16.12.2004 (Annexure-1), 21.07.2005 (Annexure-2) and 01.03.2006 (Annexure-5) passed by the District Collector, Tonk, Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk and the Revenue Board, Ajmer. Vide order dated 16.12.2004 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Collector, Tonk three-bigha land, out of total nine-bighas and four-biswa of Khasra No.2964, was allotted for the Judicial Court building at Newai as well as for residence of Presiding Officer etc. The said order was challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the appellants vide its judgment dated 21.07.2005 (Annexure-2). Thereafter, a second appeal was preferred before the Revenue Board, Ajmer. It appears that three-bigha and four-biswa land, out of this Khasra number was allotted for the Office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Niwai vide order dated 18.12.2004 and the said order was also challenged by way of an appeal, which was also dismissed and, the second appeal was also preferred before the Revenue Board. The Revenue Board heard both the appeals and dismissed the same vide order dated 01.03.2006 (Annexure-5). The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Sarpanch, Dhani-Jugalpura, Tehsil Niwai, Tonk had allotted the disputed land by issuing `patta', therefore, the land was not vacant and the same could not have been allotted for the Civil Court's Premises as well as Office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Niwai. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted that the `pattas' were issued in the three-bigha of land, whereas the total `rakba' of Khasra No.2964 was of nine-bighas and four-biswa. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in-spite of `pattas' issued in favour of the petitioners, the same land has been allotted for the aforesaid purpose, therefore, the allotment order passed by the District Collector is liable to be set aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the reasons assigned by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board while rejecting the first and second appeal of the petitioners. The Revenue Appellate Authority in its order has observed that the `pattas', which have been placed on the record are not related to the disputed land, as no Khasra number has been given in it. It has also been observed that the names of the appellants have also not been mentioned in the `pattas'. The Revenue Board in its order has observed that the land, in dispute was a pasture (Charagah) land and the Sarpanch or Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to issue `pattas' in the pasture land, therefore, from the very begining the so-called `pattas' issued were void-ab-initio. There is no reference of any decision of the Gram Panchayat in the said `pattas' nor any dispatch number has been given on them. The other reasons have also been assigned for rejection of the appeal. Apart from above, the learned counsel for the petitioners himself admits that total land of Khasra No.2964 is 9 bigha 4 biswa and out of it 3 bigha has been allotted for Judicial Courts etc., 3 bigha 4 biswa has been allotted for the Office of S.D.O. and so-called `pattas' were issued in remaining 3 bigha land and not in the above allotted land. The allotted land is separate then the land, wherein so- called `pattas' were issued. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record so as to interfere in the orders passed by the District Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Board. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. Ashok/