1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- 1. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 231 of 2008 SMT. RAJU DEVI V/S STATE & ORS 2. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 609 of 2007 LR SHIV RAJ V/S STATE & ORS 3. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 612 of 2007 LR SHIV RAJ V/S STATE & ORS 4. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 67 of 2008 MOHAN LAL V/S STATE & ORS 5. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 68 of 2008 DEVA RAM V/S STATE & ORS 6. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 75 of 2008 OMA RAM V/S STATE & ORS 7. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 76 of 2008 RAM DEEN DEORA V/S STATE & ORS 8. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 77 of 2008 BADAR RAM V/S STATE & ORS 9. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 83 of 2008 2 PANCHA RAM V/S STATE & ORS 10. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 84 of 2008 SMT. DHAPI V/S STATE & ORS 11. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 85 of 2008 PANCHA RAM V/S LAXMAN RAM CHOUDHARY & ANR. 12. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 86 of 2008 AMRA RAM V/S STATE & ORS 13. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 87 of 2008 SOHAN RAM V/S STATE & ORS 14. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 88 of 2008 OM PRAKASH V/S STATE & ORS 15. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 89 of 2008 SMT. KAMLA V/S STATE & ORS 16. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 90 of 2008 KHIYAN RAM V/S STATE & ORS 17. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 91 of 2008 MULTAN RAM V/S STATE & ORS 18. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 92 of 2008 3 RATANA RAM V/S STATE & ORS 19. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 93 of 2008 MAHAVEER CHAND V/S STATE & ORS Mr. AK RAJVANSHY & Mr.RK PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. ARJUN PUROHIT, for the respondent Date of Order : 19.8.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- This bunch of appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 28.3.2007 dismissing the writ petitions and upholding the order of the learned Additional Collector whereby the revisions were allowed, and the Patta granted to the respective appellants were cancelled. It appears that after filing of the writ petition, some sympathy of the Court was invoked by offering the petitioners to be ready to pay the prevalent market price of the land, and therefore, show cause notices were issued. Thereafter, site inspection was got conducted through Commissioner appointed by the Court who inspected the site in presence of the counsel for the parties, submitted a 4 map, recorded statement of certain important witnesses, certain photographs were also taken, and it is reported that videography was also got done, and the report was submitted. Thereafter under orders of the Court lands were auctioned, and those auctions have been confirmed by the State Government under orders of this Court dt. 7.5.2002, and thus the land which was allotted to the petitioner- appellants is admittedly no more available for settlement of any equities. Thereafter, in this appeal efforts were made by impressing upon the parties that good sense may prevail upon them, and some respectable amicable settlement may be arrived at, so as to solve the problem, and the matter was adjourned on number of dates, and every time when the matter comes up either of the parties has its own stories to tell, but then, the fact remains that no amicable respectable solution could be made out. Today counsel for the appellant made available for perusal of the Court the site plan of Khasra No. 964, and showing two packets of land to be available towards south west and south east, and out of them also Sarpanch says that the south east land is of Dargah. The allegation about the land being vacant land, and counter allegation about the land being of Dargah, rests in the realm of submission, and counter submission, without any material on record. In 5 the Commissioner's report two packets of lands being “A G I K” and “F B J H” shown in the map were shown to be available, where from 18 shops can be carved out, but then it is contended that the said land is also not available, and each party has its own versions to state about non availability of land. The net result is that the Collector has found the grant of Patta to be not in accordance with law, and after going through the material available on writ petition, we are satisfied that there is no error on the part of the Additional Collector, in finding the grant of Patta to be not in accordance with law, and in cancelling the same. Then, as noticed above that the land has already been auctioned, and that auction has already been confirmed, and in that view of the matter so far the land allotted to the petitioner-appellants under Patta is concerned, nothing can be done now. The only thing that remains now is that the fact that the appellants were granted Pattas in the year 1999, and also the fact that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court the appellants had deposited certain amount. So far out of these two circumstances, the circumstance of grant of Patta is concerned, we have already found, that the Pattas were not granted in accordance with law, and therefore, that aspect acquires state of wholly 6 innocuousness. Then, only the second aspect remains being that the appellants deposited certain amounts in the Court, purportedly showing their bonafide, to pay the prevalent market price of the land, but when the appellants did not offer the highest bid in the auction, the mere deposit of the amount cannot be said to be manifestation of their being prepared to pay market price. In such circumstances the amount deposited by them is directed to be refunded to them, along with interest earned thereon, if the amount had been put in some appropriate investment. It is, however, clarified that it will be open to the petitioners to apply for alternative other land for the shops, that may be available with the Gram Panchayat, and if such applications are made, the Gram Panchayat will consider the applications in accordance with law, and other things being equal, preference be given to the appellants. We, however,do not find the appellants to be entitled to any more relief. The appeals are accordingly disposed of as above. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/