- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in this matter where the petitioner seeks to question the order passed way back on 22.08.2003 by way of this writ petition, filed only on 18.08.2012. Even if the aspect of inordinate delay is ignored for a moment, there remains absolutely nothing in the matter on merits. The sum and substance of the matter is that the Pattas granted to the petitioner and other persons by Gram Panchayat, Amthla in relation to the land in question came to be questioned by way of revision petitions under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which were allowed by the Collector, Sirohi by the order dated 14.05.2002 after finding, inter alia, that the allotments had been made without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules; and the allottees were the close relatives of the Sarpanch concerned.
(2.) THE writ petitions as filed by other similarly situated persons against the aforesaid common order dated 14.05.2002 were considered together and disposed of by the common order dated 07.01.2003. The argument as raised before this Court about delay in filing the revision petitions was not accepted with reference to the finding that the allotments had been made without following the due procedure prescribed under the Act. However, this Court took note of the fact that some of the allottees had raised construction and they were in possession of the plots for about two decades. This Court further took note of the offer made on behalf of the petitioners that in order to meet with the ends of justice, if not dispossessed, they may be asked to pay the price of the land prevailing on the date of the decision of the revision petitions, i.e., 14.05.2002. The Government Counsel agreed to such offer and accordingly, the petitions were disposed of with directions to the revisional authority to determine the market rate of the land in question as prevailing on the relevant date and to give reasonable time to the petitioner/s to deposit the amount; and, if possible, in six monthly installments. The writ petition filed by the present petitioner, being CWP No.4244/2002, was also disposed of on 08.01.2003 in terms of the aforesaid order dated 07.01.2003. It is borne out from the material placed on record that pursuant to the directions of this Court in the aforesaid orders, the Collector, Sirohi, by his order dated 22.08.2003, proceeded to determine the market rate of the land in question as on the given date i.e., 14.05.2002 on the basis of the price as fixed by the District Level Committee for developed land near the road. Seeking to question the said order dated 22.08.2003, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority has acted wholly illegally in directing recovery of an exorbitant amount towards the value of the plot in question; and that the amount so assessed remains practically out of the reach and means of the poor persons like petitioner. Such submissions, seeking to invoke sympathy, do not make out the case for interference in the writ jurisdiction particularly when it is noticed with reference to the orders passed earlier that it had been a matter of an entirely illegal allotment and yet, this Court permitted maintaining of the same on payment of the market price as per the offer made on behalf of the petitioner. As to what price was to be fixed had essentially been a question of fact; and determination thereof on the basis of DLC rates cannot be said to be unjustified. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.;