Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mahipal vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:10752]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2460/2023
Mahipal S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village
Daylana Kallan, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Collector, Pali.
2. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Desuri, District Pali.
3. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Daylana Kallan, Tehsil
Desuri, District Pali.
4. Jogaram S/o Shri Nenaji, R/o Daylana Kallan, Tehsil
Desuri, District Pali.
5. Punaram S/o Shri Amraram Ji, R/o Daylana Kallan, Tehsil
Desuri, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr, Kuldeep Singh Solanki on behalf
of Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit
Mr. Kunal Bishnoi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
Reserved on:- 25/02/2026
Pronounced on:- 07/03/2026
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Collector,
Pali whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent
Nos.4 and 5 was allowed and the Patta No. 2079 dated
20.04.2018, issued in his favour in respect of an abadi plot
situated within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Daylana Kallan,
was cancelled.
2. Facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that the petitioner
was in old possession of an abadi plot situated within the
jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Daylana Kallan. In recognition of
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (2 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]
such possession, a residential patta was issued in his favour on
20.04.2018. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 54,556/-
towards the cost of the patta and a receipt dated 20.01.2018 was
issued in that regard. Subsequent to the issuance of the patta, the
petitioner raised construction over the said plot and is residing
therein. It is also stated that the premises has an electricity
connection. Photographs of the constructed house have been
placed on record.
3. The controversy arose when respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a
revision petition in the year 2022 under Section 97 of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 before the Collector, Pali,
seeking cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner.
Upon receipt of notice in the revision proceedings, the petitioner
submitted his written submissions before the Collector. The
Collector, Pali, vide order dated 29.11.2022, allowed the revision
petition and cancelled the patta granted to the petitioner. The said
order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
4. The record of case further shows that a factual report dated
25.05.2020 was submitted by the Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram
Panchayat Daylana Kallan, to the Vikas Adhikari pursuant to a
communication from the Office of the Collector, Pali. As per the
said report, the land was described as abadi land and it was stated
that pattas had been issued in accordance with the rules.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that
the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Collector, Pali is illegal,
arbitrary and has been passed without proper consideration of the
material available on record. It is submitted that a bare perusal of
the impugned order would show that the cancellation of the patta
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (3 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]
has been ordered merely on account of certain procedural or
clerical irregularities at the level of the Gram Panchayat office,
even if any such irregularity existed in processing the file, the
same cannot be attributed to the petitioner nor can he be made to
suffer for the same. It is contended that the factual report dated
25.05.2020 as well as the inquiry report dated 21.07.2020 clearly
indicate that the petitioner was in old possession of the abadi land
in question and that the patta was issued in accordance with the
applicable rules.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the patta was issued
taking into consideration the petitioner’s long-standing possession
over the abadi plot. The existence of construction over the plot
and an electricity connection are stated to be indicative of such
possession. It is contended that there was no illegality in issuing
the patta on the basis of old possession, but this material aspect
was not adequately considered by the revisional authority. It
further submitted that the petitioner has raised construction over
the plot after issuance of the patta and has invested substantial
amounts therein. He is stated to be residing on the property with
his family. Cancellation of the patta at this stage, according to the
petitioner, would result in serious civil consequences and would
amount to deprivation of property, allegedly violating Articles 14
and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel contended that respondent Nos. 4 and 5
had no locus standi to prefer the revision petition under Section
97 of the Act. It is submitted that the revisional proceedings were
initiated at their instance without any legal right or interest being
shown in the subject land. He, thus, implored the Court to quash
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (4 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]
and set aside the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Collector,
Pali.
8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
supported the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Collector,
Pali and submitted that the Collector, while exercising revisional
powers under Section 97 of the Act of 1994, has acted within
jurisdiction and after due consideration of the factual and legal
aspects of the matter.
9. At the outset, it was submitted that the patta in question
was obtained by the petitioner, who is close relative of the
Sarpanch, without following the due procedure prescribed under
the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules framed
thereunder. It is contended that there is no material on record to
establish that the petitioner was in lawful and long-standing
possession of the land prior to issuance of the patta, nor is there
any cogent proof to demonstrate that construction existed in
accordance with law at the relevant time.
10. Learned counsel submits that Patta No. 2079 dated
20.04.2018 was issued in violation of the statutory provisions
governing allotment of abadi land. It is argued that the then office
bearers of the Gram Panchayat failed to complete the mandatory
legal formalities before issuing the patta and that valuable land
was allotted at a nominal price without adherence to the
prescribed procedure. Such an allotment, it is contended, being de
hors the Rules of 1996, is void and unsustainable in the eye of
law.
11. It is also contended that once the very foundation of the
patta is contrary to statutory provisions, the petitioner cannot
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (5 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]
claim any vested right on the basis of such allotment. The plea
based on investment or alleged residence on the land, according
to the State, does not validate an allotment which is otherwise
illegal. Thus, it was prayed that no interference under writ
jurisdiction of this Court is warranted in the present case.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
abailable on record.
13. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.11.2022 is
reproduced below for ready reference:-
“cgl mHk;i{k lquh tkdj ml ij xgu euu fd;k x;kA i=koyh
ij miyC/k nLrkostksa dk xgurk ls v/;;u fd;k ,oa odhy izkFkhZ }kjk
izLrqr U;kf;d n`”VkUrksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr
fyf[kr cgl ds layXu fodkl vf/kdkjh dh tk¡p fjiksVZ esa of.kZrkuqlkj
ljiap ds Hkkb;ksa] HkkbZ ds iq=] iRuh o ljiap dh ekrk ds uke iV~Vs tkjh
gksuk crk;k gS ftlesa ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa dks Qk;nk ig¡qpkus dh fu;r ls
fcuk fof/kd izfØ;k viuk;s iV~Vk tkjh fd;k x;k gS] ds laca/k esa fcUnq fuEu
gS &
1- tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vk fu;e 157¼1½ ds rgr iqjkus edkuksa dk
fofu;ferhdj.k ds rgr fn;k x;k gS tcfd ekSds ij [kkyh Hkw&[k.M gSSA
2- iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e 1996 ds fu;e 47 ^^cSBd ds fopkjk/khu
fo”k; esa tc fdlh lnL; dk /kuh; fgr fufgr gks** dk rRdkyhu
ljiap }kjk Li”V mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA
3- tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vk tkjh djus esa xaHkhj izfØ;kRed dfe;ka j[kh
xbZ gSA
fcUnq la[;k 01 ds lanHkZ esa ;g gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostksa
ds vk/kkj ls ;g Li”V gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk fcuk fnukafdr vkosnu fu;e
157¼1½ esa dCts dk fofu;ferhdj.k dj iV~Vk tkjh djus dk vkosnu fd;k
gS] ftlds laca/k esa iwoZ Vafdr dk;kZy; fVIi.kh ftl ij nks i`Fkd&i`Fkd
fnukad dk vadu dj pykbZ xbZ gS ftlesa fu;e 145¼d½ ds vUrxZr Hkwfe ds
foØ; ds :i esa iV~Vk tkjh djus ckcr~ Vafdr dh gqbZ gSA ftlls
izFke&n`”V~;k ;g Li”V gksrk gS izkFkhZ dk vkosnu o fu/kkZfjr fely dh
vknsf”kdkvksa esa fojks/kkHkkl gS tks fd tSj fuxjkuh Hkw&[k.M vkoaVu dh
izfØ;k ij la’k; mRiUu djrk gSA
fcUnq la[;k 02 ds lanHkZ esa ;g gS fd cgl ds nkSjku vizkFkhZ ds
vf/koDrk us vizkFkhZ ,oa rRdkyhu ljiap ds fudV fj”rs dks Lohdkj fd;k
gSaA blls ;g Li”V gksrk gs fd rRdkyhu ljiap }kjk fudV laca/kh dks tSj
fuxjkuh iV~Vk tkjh fd;k gS rFkk mDr rF; dksje dh tkudkjh esa yk;k
x;k gks ,slk dksbZ lk{; vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls
rRdkyhu ljiap dk mDr iV~Vk tkjh djus esa Conflict of Interest vFkkZr~(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (6 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]v/;{k@lnL; dk fu.kZ; mldh :fp ls izHkkfor gksuk izFke n`”V~;k izekf.kr
gksrk gSA
fcUnq la[;k 03 ds lanHkZ esa ;g gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostksa
ls Li’V gksrk gS fd tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vk tkjh djus esa xaHkhj izfØ;kRed
dfe;ka j[kh xbZ gS fd iV~Vk tkjh djus esa nqHkkZoukiw.kZ vuf;ferrk dh vksj
bafxr djrh gSA izfØ;kRed dfe;ksa ds laca/k esa ;g gS fd tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vs
ckcr~ vizkFkhZ }kjk vkosnu fu;e 157¼1½ ds rgr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk xzke
iapk;r }kjk vknsf’kdk,a fu;e 145¼d½ ds lkFk izFke vknsf”kdk ij nks
i`Fkd&i`Fkd fnukad vafdr dh tkrh gS tcfd izkFkhZ ds vkosnu ij dksbZ
fnukad vafdr ugha gS rFkk fely dh leLr vknsf”kdk,a iwoZ Vafdr ,oa viw.kZ
gSA fely esa xzke iapk;r }kjk xfBr lfefr }kjk izLrqr fujh{k.k izi= Hkh
viw.kZ] vfnukafdr ,oa iwoZ Vafdr gS rFkk iV~Vk tkjh djus dh izfØ;k esa
fu;e 145 ls fu;e 155 dh ikyuk Hkh ugha dh xbZ gS ¼tSj fuxjkuh Hkw&[k.M
uhykeh ls foØ; gS blfy, fu;e 145 ls fu;e 155 dh ikyuk vko’;d gS½
lkFk gh vkifÙk bf”rgkj ckcr~ uksfVl ,d ekg dh vof/k dk gksuk pkfg, Fkk
tcfd dsoy 07 fnol dk gh uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k ,oa tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vs
dh uhykeh esa izkIr jkf”k v{kjs 50]000@& :i;s ls vf/kd gksus ds ckotwn
Hkh fu;e 154¼3½d ds vuq:i l{ke vf/kdjh ls vuqeksnu dk vHkko gSA vr%
fcUnq vizkFkhZ ds fo:) r; fd;k tkrk gSA
vr% tSj fuxjkuh iV~Vk tkjh djus esa izFke&n`’V~;k xaHkhj
vfu;ferrk ,oa folaxfr;ka izekf.kr gksrh gSA mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij
rhuksa fcUnq izekf.kr ik;s tkus ls vizkFkhZ ds fo:) r; fd;s tkrs gS blfy,
fely la[;k 127@30-11-2017 esa ikfjr vkns”k fnukad 20-04-2018 ,oa mldh
ikyuk esa tkjh iV~Vk la[;k 2079 fnukad 20-04-2018 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS
lkFk gh tSj fuxjkuh izdj.k esa rRdkyhu xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh ,oa vU;
lacaf/kr ds Lrj ij xaHkhj ykijokgh o vfu;ferrk ikbZ tkrh gSA vr% eq[;
dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] ftyk ifj’kn] ikyh dks funsZf”kr fd;k tkrk gS fd
rRdkyhu xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh ,oa vU; lacaf/kr ds fo:) 15 fnol esa lh-
lh-,- fu;e@lqlaxr fu;eksa esa dk;Zokgh djrs gq, tSj vkjkth dk dCtk xzke
iapk;r dks lqiqnZ fd;k tkosA”
14. Having considered the submissions advanced at bar and
perusal of the record of the case, this Court prima facie finds that
the patta in question was issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram
Panchayat to his close relative i.e. the petitioner without
adherence to the procedural requirements under the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and the rules framed thereunder. The
allotment was allegedly made at a nominal price, and the
mandatory formalities prescribed under Rule 145 to 155 of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules were not completed before
issuance. It is a settled principle that an allotment or patta
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10752] (7 of 7) [CW-2460/2023]
granted in contravention of statutory provisions is void ab initio
and does not confer any vested right, irrespective of subsequent
possession or development on the land.
15. Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act empowers
the Collector to examine the legality and propriety of pattas issued
by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, acting as a revisional
authority, has the power to correct errors, irregularities, or
illegality in such issuance. In the present case, the Collector’s
order cancelling the patta falls squarely within the scope of such
powers.
16. The petitioner has relied upon alleged old possession,
construction, and existence of an electricity connection to support
his claim. Even assuming possession existed, possession alone
cannot legalize an allotment issued in violation of statutory
provisions. It is a settled legal position that a party cannot derive
a right from possession or investment when the foundational
allotment itself is unlawful. Any hardship claimed by the petitioner
cannot override the clear statutory mandate.
17. Resultantly, this Court does not finds any error of law,
illegality, or violation of constitutional rights in the order dated
29.11.2022 passed by the Collector, Pali, warranting interference
by this Court. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
any merits.
18. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
-Divya/-
(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:01:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 08:31:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)