AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Nimb Singh @ Nem Singh has approached this Court in order to assail the order (Annexure-4) dated 05.05.2008 passed by the District Collector, Barmer in Panchayat Revision No.43/2005 rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of patta dated 15.02.2005 issued by the Gram Panchayat Harsani for the construction of a public meeting hall.
Shri Sajjan Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that patta of the very same land had already been issued in favour of petitioner who was in possession thereof. The Panchayat, in a malafide and arbitrary fashion, issued patta for the very same land creating unwarranted doubt on the petitioner's valid title over the disputed piece of land acquired through a patta lawfully issued in his favour. He urged that wholesale illegalities and irregularities were committed while issuing the disputed patta No.1 dated 15.02.2005 for construction of the public meeting hall. As per Shri Rathore, the learned District Collector, did not exercise the revisional powers vested in him in a just and fair manner and rejected the petitioner's revision in a cursory fashion and consequently, whilst allowing the writ petition, the impugned order should be set aside and the patta issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Harsani for 3900 sq. ft. of residential land for the construction of the public meeting hall should be struck down.
Per contra, Shri R.K. Thanvi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Narendra Thanvi, Advocate appearing for the respondents No.3, 4 and 5 and Shri Manish Patel, learned AGC appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 supported the order passed by the District Collector. They urged that the patta was lawfully issued by the Gram Panchayat for raising construction of a public meeting hall which has long back been constructed on the disputed land and is being used for public purposes. The petitioner has not been able to show any particular infirmity in the proceedings of the Panchayat whilst granting the dispued patta. They further urged that the petitioner, challenged the construction of the public meeting hall being raised on the land in question by filing a suit for injunction in the competent civil court. The application preferred by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was rejected by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer by order dated 14.05.2014 holding that none of the three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss were made out in favour of the petitioner so as to grant injunction to him. The said civil suit was dismissed by the competent court in the year 2015.
Shri Thanvi has placed on record, copy of the proceedings of the Civil Court during the course of the arguments which were taken on record. They thus urged that the writ petition is devoid of merit and should be dismissed.
I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Shri Rathore, learned counsel representing the petitioner could not point out any significant illegality or irregularity in the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat to the respondents No.3, 4 and 5 for raising construction of the public meeting hall. It is not in dispute that the public meeting hall has since been constructed and is being used for public purposes. The petitioner's counsel raised a grievance that in the very same proceedings of the Panchayat, the patta issued to the petitioner was also cancelled in an arbitrary fashion without providing him any opportunity of hearing whatsoever. In this regard, I have perused the revision preferred by the petitioner before the District Collector, Barmer. In the entire pleadings, the petitioner has nowhere stated that the patta issued to him had been cancelled. His only endeavour in the revision was to challenge the patta issued to the private respondents for raising construction of the public meeting hall.
The so-called order whereby, the patta issued to the petitioner was allegedly cancelled, was not placed on record of the revision nor the same is filed on record of the instant writ petition. In this background and considering the important fact that the Civil Court has decided the controversy against the petitioner vide order dated 14.05.2014 which was not challenged and has become final, I am of the firm opinion that he is not entitled to the relief sought for in the instant writ petition.
As a consequence of the above discussion, the writ petition as well as the stay application being devoid of any merit are hereby rejected.