High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 11 RAJ CK 0004

Gopal Ram S/o Late Chiman Lal vs State of Rajasthan to Be Served Through Secretary

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 28 November 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Bishnoi
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
15417 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

32 paragraphs · 294 words
1.

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner

being aggrieved with the order dated 18.9.2016 passed by the

Additional District Collector, Hanumangarh in revision petition filed

by the petitioner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

Act, 1994 (for short ''the Act of 1994'').

2.

By way of above-mentioned revision petition, the petitioner

has challenged the mutation entry in respect of plot No.98 of

village Satipura, Distt. Hanumangarh entered in the panchayat

record as per the resolution of the Gram Panchayat in its meeting

dated 28.2.1997.

3.

The Addl. District Collector, Hanumangarh has rejected the

revision petition on the ground that the petitioner and the private

respondents are from the same family and dispute regarding the

partition, family settlement and ownership of the property in

question is going on between them. The Addl. Distt. Collector,

Hanumangarh is therefore of the opinion that whatever the

dispute raised by the petitioner is of civil nature, hence, the

revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 is not

maintainable.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after

going through the material available on record, this Court does not

find any illegality in the impugned order as the dispute regarding

the partition of the property between the brothers, ownership and

the family settlement are only to be decided by the appropriate

civil court in respect of which the litigation is already going on

between the parties.

5.

Needless to say that the mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and rights of the parties cannot be decided on the basis of

the mutation entries.

6.

Hence, no interference is called for by this Court in this writ

petition.

7.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Stay petition is

also dismissed.