- (1.) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition against order passed by respondent no.1 Additional District Collector-III, Jaipur, dated 16.07.2009.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners argued that review petition could not have been entertain by Additional District Collector because he had earlier allowed revision petition filed by petitioners by order dated 05.03.2009. By subsequent order, however, earlier order was set aside and patta of 170 square yards of land issued in favour of private-respondents was held to be valid. LEARNED counsel has argued that land in dispute was in fact being used as way by petitioners and other villagers to have access to temple of Karni Mata and that patta of this land of way could not have been issued by Gram Panchayat in favour of private-respondents. In earlier order thereby allowing revision petition filed by petitioners, Additional District Collector held that proceedings of gram panchayat and relevant registers were not produced before him to prove that they were signed by Sarpanch. Mere fact that patta has been signed by Sarpanch could not justify issuance thereof in favour of respondents. However, subsequently when record was produced before him, review petition was allowed by Additional District Collector. It is argued that under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act it is the State Government which has power to review the order. The disputed land is situated on the way to temple of Karni Mata, and chabutra of Bhairuji and Hanumanji is situated close to that land. Since in note-sheet, signatures of Sarpanch were not there, patta could not have been issued genuinely. Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that petitioners have produced proceedings to show that procedure was not followed and that Additional District Collector earlier while allowing revision petition filed by petitioners merely remanded the matter for fresh proceedings. Such order could not have been reversed now in the scope of review petition. Learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition and argued that land in dispute is not a land of way. In this connection Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, inspected the site and submitted its report on 26.07.2008 and then recommended that excluding the land of chabutra of Bhairuji and Hanumanji the land could be allotted to private-respondents. The private-respondents had agriculture land closed to disputed land and they are in possession thereof since long. According to inspection report of Block Development Officer, the land is not part of the way. Respondents had applied for obtaining certified copy of proceedings of allotment but Gram Sevak who happened to be belonging to same community of petitioners, did not deliberately supply certified copy nor they produced record before Additional District Collector earlier and matter was decided against respondents. It was argued that finding that was recorded that signatures of Sarpanch were not obtained on proceeding-register but that finding was recorded because proceeding-register itself was not produced before Additional District Collector. In subsequent order, however, register of proceedings was produced wherein it was unanimously resolved by Gram Panchayat that patta was issued in favour of private-respondents. Additional District Collector has recorded a finding that all due formalities were fulfilled. Merely because signatures of Sarpanch were not obtained on relevant file, the proceeding-register on which Sarpanch and ward Panch have signed, cannot be held to be illegal and patta issued pursuant to such a proceeding cannot be described as legal. On hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing both orders, I find that earlier order remanding the matter in revision petition of petitioners was passed by Additional District Collector because proceeding-register was not produced before him. Subsequently, Additional District Collector was satisfied on perusal of proceeding-register of relevant date and different dates as also on satisfying himself that signatures of Sarpanch and ward Panch were available on proceeding-register and resolution for issuing patta in favour of private-respondents was unanimously passed by gram panchayat. The patta was held to be validly issued. Additional District Collector was also satisfied that as per report of inspection made by Block Development Officer, land in dispute was not land of way. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that Additional District Collector was unjustified in taking the view that he had taken in order dated 16.07.2009 and I am not inclined to uphold the argument that it is the State Government only which has power under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act to review the order and not the Additional District Collector because Additional District Collector only exercises the power of the State Government delegated to him under Section 97. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.;