CW 1524/99 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.1524/1999 Shyam Sunder Versus Ram Gopal & Ors. Date of Order ::: 31/03/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. G. Bardar & Mr. Mohan Choudhary, for petitioner None, for respondents despite notices served Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.10/01/1984 whereby land measuring 151 sq. yards was allotted to respondent No.1 (Ram Gopal) by Tram Panchayat Jamwaram Garh (district Jaipur) and so also order dt.17/09/98 (Ann.4) whereby revision (No.106/96) filed by petitioner U/r 272 of Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (“Rules, 1961”) was dismissed by Additional Collector (IV), Jaipur. As alleged, petitioner was holding possession of one “Bara” (open piece of land) measuring 45ft x 13ft in Ward No.3, Village Jamwaramgarh Panchayat Circle – description whereof are mentioned in para 2 of petition, which was allegedly purchased by him from one Kishan Sahai vide sale deed executed on 27/07/80 (Ann.1); and Gram Panchayat granted permission for construction. However, on application submitted by CW 1524/99 //2// respondent No.1, Gram Panchayat issued a Patta on the basis of order dt.10/01/84 allotting a piece of land measuring 34 yards north-south and 40 yards east-west in his favour. Petitioner assailed aforesaid allotment in May, 1994, when as alleged in petition, respondent No.1 threatened him to vacate disputed property allotted to him by Gram Panchayat on 10/01/84; and at this stage, revision petition was filed by petitioner U/r 272 of Rules, 1961 before Additional Collector, Jaipur who after taking note of material on record, observed that after allotment was made of land measuring 34ft x 40ft =151 sq.yards by Gram Panchayat through Patta issued vide order dt.10/01/84 respondent No.1 raised construction and has been residing in dispute property, which as alleged by petitioner is overlapping the land allotted in his favour. Additional Collector also observed that he himself examined the site and taking note of affidavits submitted by revision petitioner, it clearly reveals that the land so allotted to respondent No.1 and the land purchased by petitioner are totally different and there is no over-lapping land which can call upon to interfere in the disputed land; and thus considered not to interfere with order of CW 1524/99 //3// allotment made in favour of respondent No.1; and accordingly revision petition of petitioner was dismissed vide order impugned. Counsel for petitioner submits that the land which he purchased from Kishan Sahai who in fact was owner of property and the Gram Panchayat also granted him permission to raise constructions – demarcation whereof is almost the same as allotted to respondent NO.1 at a later point of time vide order dt.10/01/84 and thus it could not have been allotted by Gram Panchayat and that apart, procedure as provided under Rules, 1961 has not been followed while making allotment in favour of respondent No.1; but all these salient facts have been misread by revisional court while rejecting revision petition of petitioner vide order dt.17/09/98 and the findings recorded thereunder are totally perverse and require interference. I have considered contentions of Counsel for parties and with his assistance, examined material on record. Revisional Court in its judgment dt.17/09/98 has referred to letter of allotment and taking note of dimensions of plot (34 ft. north-south x 40 ft east-west total measuring-151 sq. yards) allotted to respondent No.1 – of which inspection was made and as per CW 1524/99 //4// which construction was found to have been raised thereat and so also from the record, nothing was borne out that land of respondent No.1 in any manner over-lapped the land which the petitioner purchased from Kishan Sahai on 27/07/80. Revisional Court specifically recorded the finding on its own inspection of site and so also the fact that respondent No.1 has raised pucca construction over the disputed piece of land and considered it appropriate not to now disturb even if procedure provided under Rules, 1961 is allegedly not followed in its true sense. Counsel for petitioner disputed the finding recorded by revisional court but there is no averment made in instant petition about pucca construction raised by respondent nO.1 over the disputed piece of land which according to petitioner is over-lapping his land; and what has been observed by revisional court on inspection. There is only averment that there is no order in the proceedings that he has ever visited the site and procedure provided under Rules, 1961, having not been followed. Since allotment impugned was made in the year 1984 and as per finding recorded by revisional court, constructions were raised by CW 1524/99 //5// respondent No.1 and petitioner has failed to show as to what was the procedure having not been followed and if at all there is an error in the procedure, what prejudice could be said to have been caused to him. After having considered and gone through the material on record besides orders impugned, this Court does not find manifest error in judgment, impugned, warranting interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p5/1524CW99Mar31ds.doc