Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions seek to challenge the order of the District Collector, Sikar dt. 04.08.1997, who has thereby set aside the patta pursuant to the decision of the Gram Panchayat, Jalpani in revision petition filed by the private respondents. For deciding the controversy, the facts of CW No. 6862/97 are taken note of.
(2.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the pattas were issued to them on the basis of application of petitioners dt. 02.06.1963 and 14.06.1963 that they want to construct pucca houses on the land which was already in their possession. Since they have division among three brothers, three different pattas were issued by the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. Petitioners have raised construction and for last 35 years, they are residing peacefully on such land. According to the petitioners, the land on which the patta was issued was an abadi land, being part of Khasra Nos. 640 and 641 and recorded as abadi land in the records. It is argued that on account of some wrongful entry made by the Land Settlement Department, the land area of the abadi in Khasra No. 640 and 641, which was originally recorded as 1 bigha and 2 biswas, was reduced and recorded as only 0.04 biswas. Taking advantage of this fact, the respondents filed revision petition with delay of 33 years, which has been allowed by the District Collector, Sikar by his impugned order. It is argued that if at all, the respondents are aggrieved by the fact that the land which was in possession of the petitioners fell in Khasra No. 644 or the entry thereabout was not correctly made, their remedy was to approach the appropriate revenue Court.
(3.) SHRI Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that, in fact, disputed houses were constructed on the land of Khasra No. 644 which was in the Khatedari of the respondents. Learned counsel cited the pattas issued to the petitioners by Gram Panchayat and submitted that in the pattas neither correct description of the land has been given, nor there was any measurement. The petitioners are in possession of the land much in excess of the land for which pattas have been issued and thereupon they encroached upon the land of the private respondents which was, in fact, agriculture land. The Patwari Halka inspected the site on 05.06.1995 under the order of Tehsildar and it was he who gave the finding that the petitioners have encroached upto 3 meters in the land of Khasra No. 644 belonging to the respondents. Learned counsel further argued that the suit filed by the petitioners for injunction has been dismissed. It was also argued that for issuance of patta compliance of provisions of Section 256 to 269 of the Rajasthan Panchayati (General) Rules, 1961 was not made. Neither any Committee of the panchas inspected the site, nor notice inviting objections was issued, nor was the notice was affixed at a conspicuous place close to the disputed site. The Collector was therefore fully justified in setting aside the pattas.;