- (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2011, passed by the Assistant District Collector�I Jaipur City, Jaipur setting aside the Patta issued on 05.11.2009 to the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition as also the impugned order. By the impugned order, the revising authority has come to a conclusion that for one, the Patta issued to the petitioner admeasuring 300 sq. yard was ex-facie contrary to Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1996') whereunder a Patta to an extent of 150 sq. yard only could be allotted if the essential pre-conditions for allotment thereof were otherwise satisfied. The revising authority also found that the procedure prescribed for public notice before the issue of Patta under Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 was not adhered to inasmuch as from the relevant file of the Panchayat it did not appear that notices were pasted duly signed by well known persons of the village at conspicuous public places notifying the public of the proposed allotment. The revising authority further seriously questioned from the facts on record as to whether the Patta issued by the Gram Panchayat Manota was issued over Abadi land in its jurisdiction or whether it was issued on the khatedari land of the revision petitioner Chhaju Ram Meena, respondent herein. The revising authority found from the reports of the revenue officer before it that it was not possible to come to a definitive conclusion with regard to the ownership of the Panchayat over the land over which Patta was issued to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the revising authority has remanded the matter to the Gram Panchayat Manota with the direction that it be determined as to whether the land on which the Patta was issued was Abadi land in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat Manota or khatedari land of the respondent Chhaju Ram Meena and thereafter it proceed in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Rules of 1996 before making any allotment to the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the Additional District Collector-I Jaipur City, Jaipur is a well considered and reasoned order. There is no perversity in the facts of the case and neither is the impugned order vitiated by any misdirection in law. On the contrary, it is evident that the petitioner was issued a Patta admeasuring 300 sq. yard as against the maximum of 150 sq. yard which could be alloted under Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996. Further the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1996 does not appear to have been followed as found by the revising authority. There is no material before the Court to come to a contrary conclusion. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in SBCWP No.17915/2011, titled Badri Narain Meena Vs. The Additional Collector�I, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Ors., decided on 16.12.2011, this Court even while upholding the order of cancellation passed by the Revising Authority had protected the possession of the petitioner Badri Narain Meena therein for the duration of the pending decision on remand. Counsel submitted that on parity of reasoning, this Court, even if upholds the order of remand dated 15.11.2011, passed by the Additional District Collector�I, should similarly protect the petitioner's possession while the matter is under reconsideration of the Gram Panchayat following the remand. I am afraid that there is no force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and I am unable to allow the petitioner similar protection as granted to Badri Narain Meena in SBCWP No.17915/2011 decided on 16.12.2011. The reason for the disinclination of this Court to protect the possession of the petitioner lies in the fact that the petitioner in possession of 300 sq. yard land claims an allotment under Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 which however limits the allotment when made to 150 sq. yard on the most optimistic case of the petitioner, he can be allotted after consideration on remand only 150 sq. yard. This Court cannot protect the possession for 300 sq. yard land. Further, the order of allotment having been found to be illegal and vitiated by procedural ultra vires as mandated under the Rules of 1996 does not confer any right on the petitioner when the allotment itself has been set aside. I thus do not find any ground to pass an interim order protecting the possession of the petitioner in respect of 300 sq. yard land more so contrary to the plain language and limitations of an allotment even when validly made under Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996.
(3.) FOR the reason aforesaid, the prayer of the petitioner for interim protection of his possession during the reconsideration of the matter by the Gram Panchayat Manota on remand by the Additional District Collector�I vide order dated 15.11.2011 is rejected. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Stay application is also dismissed.;