CHUNNILAL Vs. REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
LAWS(RAJ)-1986-1-26
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 08,1986

CHUNNILAL Appellant
VERSUS
REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MILAP CHAND JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner got the Abadi land sold to him by the Gram Panchayat, Morcha by private negotiations, for a sum of Rs. 33.60 paisa, by order dated 30 -9 -1973. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted permission to make construction. The land was abutting and adjoining his property. In pursuance to the permission construction was made by the petitioner. On a complaint the Collector, Udaipur sent a notice Exhibit -1 dated 6 -9 -1977 to the petitioner and, therefore, by order dated 19 -10 -1977 directed the Tehsildar to take action in accordance with law and he upheld the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer where by the sale was held to be invalid. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The revision petition was rejected on 28 -10 -1978. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the order passed by the Panchayat regarding transfer of Abadi land under Rule 226 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 is appealable to the Panchayat Samiti under Rule 270 and no appeal was filed. The Collector could hear appeal from the order of the Panchayat Samiti under Rule 270. The executive action taken by the Collector was uncalled for. So the order passed by the Collector was without jurisdiction. There is force in the aforesaid contention. When the order was appealable, the Collector could not proceed to hear the matter on any complaint. The ground on which the sale is held to be invalid also does not appear to be tenable. The land was transferred for a sum less than Rs. 200/ -. Approval was required to be obtained only when the value exceeds Rs. 200/ -upto valuation of Rs. 1000/ - and beyond Rs. 200/ - approval is to be obtained from the Panchayat Samiti. The Sub -Divisional Officer has no authority under Sub -rule (3) of Rule 65.
(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Collector is liable to be quashed and set aside and as consequence thereof the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority also deserves to be quashed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.