A revision writ petition was filed by Mr.Pukaram against Vikas Adhikari And Gram Panchayat, Jhalore, under section 97 of Rajasthan Panchayat Act,1994.
Before the Appeal, Vikas Adhikari and Gram Panchayat challenged the Pasta No.14/1 dated 05-12-2001.It was argued that the Patta that was granted was not in conformity with Rile no.157B of Rajasthan panchayat Raj Rules,1996.They also alleged the the issuance fee of Patta was also not deposited ,leading to breach of condition Np.8 of the terms of the Patta. They also asserted that the land was not available for allotment since it was a ‘Gair Mamkin Pahad’.
Learned Additional Collector allowed the aforesaid revision petition, filed by the respondent - Gram Panchayat and set aside the subject 'Patta' dated 05.12.2001. Learned Additional Collector recorded a categorical finding that there is no evidence of affixation of objections on the conspicuous place of Panchayat, no proof of deposit of Rs.25/- for inspection fee, Rs.60/- - the fee for approval of the map and Rs.100/- - fee for issuance of 'Patta'. The learned Additional Collector has also given a finding that the land on which the 'Patta' had been granted was recorded as "Gair Mumkin Pahad", which was not available for grant of "Patta".
Learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to satisfy the Court that the land, for which the contentious 'Patta' has been issued, is not a land of "Gair Mumkin Pahad" and the same had been converted by the State Government to Aabadi, vide order dated 30.10.1981. Photographs of construction raised was also submitted to the court.Hence the court concluded that, no error was found in the order of the learned Additional Collector that the land in question was recorded as "Gair Mumkin Pahad", for which no 'Patta' could be issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat.
The court added, “ That apart, the District Collector has clearly recorded a finding that there is no evidence to show that the requisite fee of inspection (Rs.25/-), approval of map (Rs.60/-) and issuance of Patta (Rs.100/-) have been deposited. Even the petitioner has not produced any receipt or evidence to show that such amount was deposited by him. In absence of proof of payment of the requisite amount/fee, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 'Patta' in question had been irregularly issued to the petitioner and the authority below has committed no error of law in setting it aside.
And the petition was therefore dismissed.