SBCWP NO.2704/2006– JAYANTI LAL V/S STATE AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.26.3.2008 1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2704/2006 Jayanti Lal versus State of Rajasthan and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Girish Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 None present for the respondent No.3 – Gram Panchayat. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 25th March, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Assistant Collector dated 23.3.2002 allowing the revision petition filed by Panchayat Extension Officer, Sirohi under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act whereby the said Authority cancelled the patta of the land issued in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat Sildhar. SBCWP NO.2704/2006– JAYANTI LAL V/S STATE AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.26.3.2008 2/6 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Gram Panchayat had issued said 'patta' after investigating into all the relevant facts in accordance with Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 vide Annex.2, copy of minutes dated 30.10.1998 of the said Gram Panchayat. A perusal of the said minutes indicates that in the meeting held on 30.10.1998, merely a note has been put that 19 persons had applied for grant of patta for old houses and at serial No.12 name of the present petitioner Jayanti Lal appeared. In the said meeting, the said file was ordered to be placed in the next meeting. The minutes of next meeting reproduced at page 19 of the writ petition indicates that on the said application, notice inviting objections was issued by the Gram Panchayat on 6.11.1999 and since no objections were received within the time stipulated, the said file was ordered to be kept in the next meeting with affidavit/evidence of two witnesses. No minutes of any meeting thereafter has been placed on record, therefore, final decision taken by the said Gram Panchayat under Rule 157 sanctioning the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner is not on record. However, Annex.3 produced by the petitioner is the patta issued under Rule 157 for a SBCWP NO.2704/2006– JAYANTI LAL V/S STATE AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.26.3.2008 3/6 sum of Rs.200/-. The description of the property given in the said patta along with the map does not indicate that any old house is existing on the said plot in question. 4. The Assistant Collector, by the impugned order dated 23.3.2002 held that the Gram Panchayat could not have issued these pattas under Rule 157 which applies only for regularisation of old houses situated within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat. For old houses constructed more than 50 years ago, such patta of abadi land can be issued for Rs.100/- and for old houses constructed during last 50 years from the date of commencement of these rules, such pattas can be issued for a sum of Rs.200/-. Rule 157 of the said Rules is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “Rule 157. Regularisation of old houses:- Where the persons are in possession of the old house in Abadi Land and desire to get a Patta issued, patta may be issued by the panchayat after depositing charges as under:- (a) For old houses constructed more Rs.100/- than fifty years ago (b) For old houses constructed Rs.200/- during last fifty years from the date of commencement SBCWP NO.2704/2006– JAYANTI LAL V/S STATE AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.26.3.2008 4/6 of these Rules. Provided that no fees shall be charged under Clause (a) and only 10% fees shall be charged under Clause (b) from the families included in the list of below poverty line.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Girish Joshi has contended that the learned Assistant Collector has erred in allowing the revision petition and cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner casting negative burden on the petitioner. In the alterantive he submitted that the Revisional Authority ought to have remanded the case back to the Gram Panchayat for re-consideration. 6. These submissions are opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4. No reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Gram Panchayat nor any counsel appeared on behalf of the Gram panchayat. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. SBCWP NO.2704/2006– JAYANTI LAL V/S STATE AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.26.3.2008 5/6 8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.3.2002 indicates that the Revisional Authority had allowed the revision petition and cancelled the pattas in question including that of the petitioner finding that the Gram Panchayat had issued such pattas for vacant plots of land and no old houses were constructed there and therefore, it was contrary to Rule 157 of the aforesaid Rules. The said Authority also found that the petitioner had failed to adduce any evidence in support of his claim for grant of patta showing existence of old house on the site in question. A bare perusal of Rule 157 clearly shows that the said Rule has been enacted only to regularize possession of old houses in abadi land for which patta can be issued on payment of prescribed fee. It is not the case of sale of abadi land, which is covered by Rule 156 of the said Rules though title of Annex.3 said to be patta indicates that it is sale-deed in respect of abadi land. Be that as it may, since admittedly, there is no evidence on the record indicating existence of some old house at the site in question, prima facie applying Rule 157 and issuance of patta against a sum of Rs.200/- cannot be held to be justified. Therefore, the Revisional Authority cannot be faulted in allowing the revision petition filed by the Panchayat Extension Officer and setting aside said patta. There is SBCWP NO.2704/2006– JAYANTI LAL V/S STATE AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.26.3.2008 6/6 no question of casting any negative burden on the petitioner because burden of proof correctly lied upon the petitioner only to prove that there was existing old house which was required to be regularized in terms of Rule 157. Therefore, the learned Assistant Collector cannot be said to have committed any error if he has held that since the petitioner did not discharge any such burden, the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat was irregular and was required to be quashed and set aside. 9. This Court finds no force in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.81 Ss/-