1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.814/2009 (Abdul Nisar Vs. Leela Kanwar & Ors.) Date of order : 04.02.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. C.R. Jakhar, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that a patta was issued in his favor in accordance with law by Gram Panchayat, Mathaniya in the year 1966. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat, Mathaniya again issued patta for the same land in favor of respondent No.1 in the year 1984 without following process of law. Against the subsequent patta issued in favor of the respondent no.1, a revision petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Upon revision filed by the petitioner, the Addl. Disrict Collector (II), Jodhpur passed an order on 24.3.2008 and certain directions were issued for making an enquiry. Against that 2 order, a review petition was filed by the petitioner, that too, was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure-7). Aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of remand passed by Addl. District Collector (II), Jodhpur is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 97 of the Act of 1994. Further, it is argued that without setting aside the patta issued in favour of respondent No.1, the matter has been remitted to the Vikas Adhikari whereas the matter was to be remitted to the Gram Panchayat, Mathaniya, therefore, the order is illegal. Hence, the orders impugned dated 24.3.2008 and 11.11.2008 may be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the patta was issued in favor of the petitioner in the year 1966 for the land upon which the subsequent patta has been issued, which is contrary to the rules. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the language of Section 97 (1) of the Act of 1994, which is as follows : “97.- Power of revision and review by 3 Govt.- (1) The State Government may, either of its own motion or on an application from any person interested call for and examine the record of a Panchayati Raj Institution or of a Standing Committee or Sub committee thereof in respect of any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein or as to the regularity of such proceedings and, if in any case, it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly: Provided that the State Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless such party has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.” Upon perusal of Section 97 of the Act of 1994, it is obvious that if it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order is required to be modified, annulled or reversed or required to be remitted for re-consideration, it can be passed by the State Government. Here, in this case, the Addl. District Collector (II), Jodhpur while exercising the power under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 remitted the case to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Osian. In my opinion, the only error has been committed by the 4 Addl. District Collector (II), Jodhpur to remit the case to the Vikas Adhikari. The matter was to be remitted to the Gram Panchayat, Mathania, who has issued the subsequent patta in favor of the respondent No.1. The other part of the order is in consonance with the power left with the Addl. District Collector (II), Jodhpur under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 whereby he has remitted the matter for enquiry. In this view of the matter, the order dated 24.3.2008 is modified and the matter is hereby remitted to the Gram Panchayat, Mathania for enquiry and further, it is observed that after enquiry in accordance with the order dated 24.3.2008, if it is found that the subsequent patta was illegally issued, then, the same may be set aside after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun