KAILASH RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
D.P.GUPTA, J. -
(1.)THIS special appeal has been filed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge dated August 17, 1973 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appelant and upholding the orisr of the Additional Collector, Pali dated June 26, 1971 (Ex. 7).
(2.)THE appellant -petitioner applied to the Gram Panchayat, Surnerpur for allotment of Nazul land measuring 16 x 96 Gaj situated at Sumerpur on the ground that he was in possession of disputed place of land since the Time of his ancestors. It is not disputed that Mohanraj, brother of the petitioner Kailashraj, was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat., Sumerpur at the ieievant time. The Gram Panchant, Sumespur by its order dated January 6, 1964, in the meeting presided over by Mohanraj Sarpanch, decided to sell the disputed pece of laud to the appellant on a concessional rate of Rs. 0.37 p par Sq Gaj by private negotiation, on the alleged ground that the said laid was in possession of the appellant since a long time The matter was referred to the Panchayat Samiti., Sumerpur One Tarasingh also filed an appeal to the Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur against the order of the Gram Patutnyat, dated January 6, 1964. The Panchayat Samiti dismissed the appeal of Tarasingh and confirmed the sale of the disputed land in favour of the appellant. It appears that thereafter fresh election took place and new Sarpanch was elected of Gram Panchayat Sumerpur, in place of Mohanraj, brother of the appellant. The newly elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur preferred a revision petition before the Additional Collector, Pali, vho inspected the site and by his order dated Juae 26, 1971 (Ex. 7), the sale made by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the appellant was set aside. The Addition is Collector, Pali held (hat Gram Panchayat was not justified in holding that the land in dispute was in possession of the appellant for a long time. Aceoiding to him, there was no material on record to show that Kailash Raj was in possession of the disputed land. The Additional Collector found that the alleged land is an opsn piece of land and it adjoins the Parkota of the 'Bada' belonging to his brother Mohanraj.
Dis -satisfied with the order passed by the Additional Collector, Pali dated June 26, 1971, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court. Learned Single Judge observed that the Gram Panchayat failed to give a finding that the land in question was 'Abadi' land. However, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the finding of the Gram Panchayat Sumerpur that the plot of land in question was in possession of the appellant from the time of his ancestors appears to bi wholly erroneous. It was observed that the Parchayat could transfer any 'Abadi' land by private negotiation by way of sale to a person who has a plausible claim of title to the land in question and auction of the said land in question would not have fetched a reasonable price. Learned Singh Judge agreed with the finding recorded by the Additional Collector Pali and held that the appellant was unable to show that he had a plausible claim of title to the land in question.
(3.)IN this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in raising a doubt that the land in dispute, was 'Abadi' land or not. The Additional Collector himself directed the Gram Panchayat Sumerpur 10 dispose of the plot of land in dispute by sale by means of public auction and as such it was never in dispute that the land in question was Abadi, land. The Gram Panchayat sold the land in dispute by private negotiaton, obviously on the basis that was land was 'Abadi' land and on this question there was no contest before the Additional Collector Pali. As such, there is no reason for the learned Single Judge to hold hold that the land in question was not 'Abadi' land.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.