SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THESE 11 petitioners have filed this joint petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed that the impugned composite order dated 20. 6. 1996 (Annex. 22) be quashed and set aside to the extent of cancelling Pattas illegally issued by ex-Sarpanch Puna Ram Chaudhary.
(2.) LEARNED counsel Shri M. S. Singhvi, for the petitioners raised three submis-sions in the matter; (i) that the petitioners were issued patta by Ex-Sarpanch, Puna Ram Chaudhary way back in 1986 and that cannot be cancelled after lapse of period of ten years, that too without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, (ii) before passing the impugned order of cancellation of Patta issued in favour of the petitioners no opportunity was given and (iii) the impugned order of cancellation of Patta does not contain any ground for its cancellation. It is true that by the impugned order at Annex. 22 the Patta issued in favour of in all 296 persons by Ex-Sarpanch, Puna Ram Chaudhary was cancelled only in 1996 after a lapse of ten years, but that was done in a regular enquiry held against the Ex-Sarpanch, wherein, it was found that 296 persons were issued Patta by the Ex-Sarpanch, Puna Ram Chaudhary free of charge. Out of them four were Govt. employees, six were minors, 70 had already `pakka houses' and 186 had `kachcha Houses' and 30 persons were staying with their fathers. The impugned order dated 20. 6. 1999 (Annex. 22) passed by the State Govt. after giving full fledged hearing to the then Ex-Sarpanch, Puna Ram Chaudhary. This type of illegal allotment of Patta came to the notice of the State Govt. only in 1990 and enquiry was commenced and ultimately in 1996 when it was found that ex-Sarpanch mis-used his office and illegally allotted Pattas to in all 296 persons and if it was cancelled after a period of ten years from the date of allotment then it would not make any difference. Hence, delay of ten years in such cases would not at all help the petitioners. Second submission was that without giving an opportunity of hearing the Patta issued to present petitioners could not have been cancelled by the impugned order at Annex. 22. At first look, this submission looks to be an attractive one, but on close scrutiny it was found of no substance. The reason is that when there was a full fledged regular enquiry held against the Ex-Sarpanch, who issued Patta ille-gally in favour of in all 296 persons then there was no question of giving any opportunity of hearing to the persons, who have been illegally given Pattas. Once the impugned order dated 20. 6. 99 (Annex. 22) is passed by the State Govt. disqualifying the Ex-Sarpanch for his illegal action of allotting Pattas free of charge to those persons who are not eligible then the consequential order of cancellation of Patta must follow and accordingly, that order was passed by the State Govt. while disqualifying the Ex-Sarpanch, Puna Ram Chaudhary under Section 38 (1) (B) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. In that view of the matter, no question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners arises. However, submission of Mr. Singhvi was that if the petitioners were given an opportunity then they could have pointed out that Pattas were legally granted in their favour, therefore, it was wrongly cancelled by the State Govt. as per the impugned order at Annex. 22. If this submission of Mr. Singhvi is accepted then it will come to this that Pattas were legally issued and the impugned order of disqualifying the Ex-Sarpanch, Puna Ram Chaudhary for illegally issuing Pattas was wrongly passed. It may be stated that the impugned order at Annex. 22 was never challenged by the Ex-Sarpanch, Shri Puna Ram Chaudhary. Hence, in these type of cases extending an opportunity of hearing to the persons, who were illegally allotted Pattas would be exercising futility and in my considered opinion, those persons who managed to get Patta illegally, against the provisions of law by using unfair means from the person, who is in authority, then it does not lie in their mouth to say that they should have been given an opportunity of hearing before cancelling the Pattas. Hence, this submission is also rejected. Last submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order does not contain any grounds. Going through the impugned order at Annex. 22 it is clearly mentioned in the impugned order at Annex. 22 that by issuing such illegal Pattas in favour of in all 296 persons they have been wrongly benefited. This was enough for the State Govt. to cancel the Pattas. Thus, it cannot be said that the order does not contain any ground or reasons for cancelling the Pattas. Hence, this submission is also rejected.
(3.) BEFORE parting, I must state that by the impugned composite order at Annexure 22 the Pattas issued in favour of in all 296 persons were cancelled by the State Government and out of them only 11 persons have filed this petition and for the rest of the persons the order had become final. In my opinion, though by an composite order the Pattas issued in favour of 296 persons were cancelled, the 11 persons could not have filed joint petition because that order was one but the Pattas were issued in their individual capacity, therefore, such a joint petition was not maintainable. Be that as it may, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, I do not find any substance or merit in this petition and accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. .;