Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dt. 30.08.2003 passed by the Collector, Pali and, so also, prayed for quashing patta dt. 13.03.1991. Annex. -1. According to facts of the case, this petition has been filed by Meghwal Samaj of village Sasari Tehsil Desuri (Distt. Pali) and petitioner Samaj members have contended that respondent No. 2 granted patta vide misal (file) No. 6/95 on 13.03.1997 to respondent No. 3 free of cost. The said patta is Annex. -1 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the land for which the patta was given to respondent No. 3 is in possession of the Samaj and the members of the Samaj used it for marriages, condolences and holding meetings etc. in the interest of the society.
(2.) IT is contended in the writ petition that the said patta was issued, without making the information public, silently by the Sarpanch in disregard of the provisions of the governing Act and Rules, therefore, a revision petition was filed under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and challenged the patta on the ground that after obtaining the order -sheet of the proceedings for issuing patta it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that after fabricating the order -sheet the patta was issued in favour of respondent No. 3 and it is also contended that as per the order -sheet dt. 28.02.1997 it is observed in the proceedings that even upon the application for grant of patta there is no signature of respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention towards the order -sheets of the proceedings. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complete procedure which is said to be adopted for issuing the patta is concocted one and the Gram Panchayat has flouted the provisions of law and in a very strange way the patta was issued. It is also submitted that the order -sheets were inter -polated which is evident from Annex. -3 and even upon the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it does not bear signature of respondent No. 3. Likewise, it is observed in the inspection report that Narayan Lal, respondent No. 3 is in Bombay but his father is present. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that all these facts were brought to the knowledge of the District Collector while filing the revision petition under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 but the same were not considered and while giving finding that patta has rightly been issued because respondent No. 3 is in possession of the land as per report dt. 15.07.1999, the Collector approved the issuance of the patta by the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the order passed by the District Collector dt. 30.08.2003 is illegal and deserves to be quashed because the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land for last nearly 50 years.
(3.) ON the other hand, it is contended on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the order passed by the Collector is perfectly legal and there is no ground to interfere with the order. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the land in question never belonged to the Samaj and the temple and temple land is away from the pattasud land of the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the aforesaid land was in possession of the Ada Ram (father of respondent No. 3) and he applied for patta of the said land on 07.08.1995. Upon the application of Ada Ram, the matter was taken up for necessary enquiry and a committee of three Panchas was constituted for the purpose. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 that upon the report of the enquiry conducted by the committee, vide Annex. -R/3/2, notice was issued inviting objections and, thereafter, an application was filed by Ada Ram to the effect that if out of the total land, patta for the land measuring 30 x 45 ft. is issued in favour of respondent No. 3 Narayan Lal free of cost he does not have any objection to it and as such patta for the land in question was issued in favour of respondent No. 3. It is contended that patta was issued in favour of respondent No. 3 after following due process of law and there was no irregularity or illegality committed by the Gram Panchayat, therefore, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, the Collector categorically observed that after having conducted enquiry patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat in accordance with law which does not call for any interference.;