G.R.MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) Challenge is to the judgment dated 07.02.2018 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants which laid a challenge to an order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the District Collector, Jhalawar.
(2.) The District Collector, Jhalawar entertained an application by respondent No.4 (Bhooli Bai) bringing to the notice of the Collector that patta issued by the Panchayat in favour of Ramkalyan, predecessor in interest of the appellants, was illegal and should be set aside. As per Bhooli Bai the land was allotted to her late husband by the Tehsildar. The Collector exercised power under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act,1953, which empowers the State Government, to satisfy itself regarding correctness, legality and propriety of orders passed in administrative matters by the Panchayat by calling for and examining the relevant records. The Collector called for the records and found that Gram Panchayat had passed a Resolution on 24.12.1980 noting therein that Ramkalyan was in possession of the land in respect whereof patta was sought and thus it was opined by the Panchayat that auction would not be a convenient mode to dispose of the land. The Panchayat Resolved to grant patta to Ramkalyan by charging him Rs. 200/-. The Collector noted that the patta was issued thereafter on a day which was a Sunday and the 'misal' number had not been mentioned on the patta. Accordingly the Collector passed an order cancelling the patta, opining that there was a fraud.
(3.) The appellants as successors in interest of Ramkalyan filed a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 07.02.2018 noting clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. The learned Single Judge has held that as per said clause abadi land belonging to the panchayat could be sold by private negotiation only if a person had a plausible claim of title on the land and an auction may not fetch reasonable price. The learned Single Judge has held that mere possession is no ground to hold that the person concerned has a plausible claim of title on the land.;