SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This petition is directed against order dated 27.2.17 of Additional District Collector, Jalore, whereby a patta of a plot issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner herein stands cancelled in exercise of the power conferred under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act").
(2.) The petitioner made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Sayala, claiming patta of residential plot alleged to be in his possession for years together. The application preferred was processed by the Gram Panchayat, Sayala under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). After due consideration, the Gram Panchayat resolved to issue patta in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.260/-, while regularising his possession over the land, patta of the plot ad measuring 225 sq. ft. was issued in his favour under Rule 157 of the Rules. The legality of the patta issued was questioned by the second respondent herein by way of revision petition preferred under Section 97 of the Act before the Additional District Collector, Jalore. The revision petition has been allowed by the revisional authority and patta issued in favour of the petitioner stands cancelled. Hence, this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the patta has been issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner after following the procedure laid down. Learned counsel submitted that the property in question was in possession of petitioner's predecessor and subsequently, by virtue of written family settlement dated 31.12.94, the said property came into share of the petitioner. Learned counsel while drawing the attention of the court to the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat, submitted that before issuing the patta, Gram Panchayat invited the objections by issuing notice, however, no objections were received and thus, after obtaining the site inspection report taking into consideration the long possession of the petitioner, patta issued under Rule 157 of the Rules, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the respondent no.2 claimed his right over the plot in question and therefore, there was no occasion for the revisional authority to examine the legality of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner at the instance of the respondent no.2 on the ground of alleged violation of provisions of the Rules.;