Nimb Singh @ Nem Singh S/o Shri Bachal Singh vs State of Rajasthan

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.