Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. In these four writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the common order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Collector, Barmer in the revision petitions filed by respondent Ganga Ram, bearing No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2007, whereby the learned Addl. Collector allowed the said revision petitions and cancelled pattas No. 182, 183, 180 and 181 dated 25.07.2003 and 20.01.2004.
3. According to the facts of the case, petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 557/2008, Bhinya Ram is Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Undoo. The petitioner filed an application for grant of patta in respect of his land which was said to be in his possession for over a long period of last 100 years. The said application was filed by the petitioner Bhinya Ram to Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Undoo. Likewise, his son Navla Ram (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 554/2008), his brother Deraj Ram (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 555/2008) and his another son Mana Ram (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 556/2008) also filed applications for grant of patta in respect of lands allegedly in their long possession. In the applications filed for grant of patta by all these persons it was stated that the lands are abadi land and they are in possession for over last 100 years. According to the petitioners, after following the rules as provided under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996, the Gram Panchayat Undoo issued patta in question in respect of the land said to in possession of the petitioners.
4. After issuing the said patta to these petitioners separately on 25.07.2003 non-petitioner Ganga Ram preferred revision petitions under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 for cancellation of those pattas on the ground that Sarpanch Bhinya Ram (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 557/2008) and his brother and sons were given patta by the Gram Panchayat illegally on the basis of forged documents. As per the revision petitions, Sarpanch Bhinya Ram got patta of the land from the Gram Panchayat in his own name and in the names of his brother and sons. According to the revisionist nonpetitioner with a view to getting and having got special benefit for himself and his brother and sons, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Bhinya Ram has acted in contravention of law and while preparing false proceedings for issuing patta, he has managed to get the pattas so issued by the Gram Panchayat.
5. In the revision petition filed under Section 97 of the Act of 1994, the learned Addl. Collector, Barmer, after issuing notice and providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, called the record of the proceedings for issuing those pattas. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the allegation of issuing patta illegally by the Gram Panchayat of the lands which were alleged to be belonging to the Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti is totally wrong and the allegations levelled by the non-petitioner revisionist for managing the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat are totally wrong. But, the learned Addl. Collector, Barmer cancelled the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners.
6. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners before issuing pattas of the lands which were in possession of the petitioners for last 100 years, the procedure laid down under Rules 140 and 158 of the Rules of 1996 was followed and there was no illegality in issuing the patta of the lands upon which the petitioners were in possession. Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to the certified copies of the proceedings right from site inspection to passing of the resolution for issuing patta and contended that upon perusal of these documents of the proceedings it is clear that before issuing the pattas all the formalities contemplated by law were fulfilled by the Gram Panchayat; and, so also, no illegality was committed by the Gram Panchayat in issuing the pattas. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that if any patta was issued in favour of the petitioner Bhinya Ram and his brother and sons, that too, cannot be said to be illegal because in the proceedings for issuing the patta, the Sarpanch Bhinya Ram himself has not put his signature upon the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat and all the proceedings were taken up by the Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.
7. I have perused the impugned order and so also heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners.
8. At the outset, it may be observed that it is true that for issuing the patta each of the petitioners filed separate application to the Gram Panchayat. Upon perusal of all the four applications filed by the petitioners separately it is clearly revealed that assertion was made by the petitioners that they are-in possession of the lands situated in khasra No. 554 for over last hundred years, In this regard, the age of petitioner Bhinya Ram is mentioned as 70 years in his affidavit filed with the writ petition. Similarly, age of Navla Ram is mentioned as 33 years, Deraj Ram's age is mentioned 65 years and age of Mana Ram is shown to be 38 years; meaning thereby, the assertion made in the applications for issuing patta that they are in possession for over last hundred years is obviously incorrect. It is also made clear that in the said applications it is nowhere stated that their fore-fathers were in possession of the said lands or that the possession has devolved upon them by virtue of lands being in possession of their ancestors. It is very significant to mention here that except except the application of petitioner Bhinya Ram, Sarpanch all other applications were filed by and before Bhinya Ram himself and his signature is put on the applications and, so also, signature of the Up-Sarpanch is there. Likewise, in the further proceedings like notice and other order-sheets the same bear signature of Bhinya Ram. So also, in some of the ordersheets, the signature/thumb impression of Up Sarpanch are there. It is, therefore, meant that both Bhinya Ram and the Up-Sarpanch drew the proceedings for issuing the pattas.
9. In the case of Bhinya Ram, over the seal of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, one Daula Ram put his signature whereas Bhinya Ram himself is Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, then, how Daula Ram showing him to be Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Undoo can put his signature. Similarly, in the case of Navla Ram and Mana Ram also, Daula Ram put his signature as Sarpanch. On the basis of these order-sheets, the final order was passed by the Gram Panchayat.
10. Admittedly, Bhinya Ram was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat but, in these cases, pattas were issued in favour of the petitioner himself and his brother and sons and, one unknown person Daula Ram put his signature as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Undoo for issuing patta and allotment was made; meaning thereby, pattas were issued on the basis of fabricated documents. Upon perusal of pattas issued on 25.07.2003 in favour of Deraj Ram, Mana Ram and Navala Ram, it is revealed that these pattas were issued on the basis of signature of Daula Ram as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat whereas he was not the Sarpanch. Similarly, on the patta issued in favour of Bhinya Ram, it bears signature of Daula Ram as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Undoo as the issuing authority and signature of one Miyal Khan whereas in the proceedings the same bears thumb impression of Miyal Khan.
11. It appears from the record that whole proceedings was based upon fabricated documents and pattas were issued by one Daula Ram showing himself as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat on 25.07.2003 and 20.01.2004. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Addl. Collector, Barmer has rightly observed that the proceedings undertaken for the purpose of issuing patta were totally illegal.
12. Likewise, the pattas have been issued in contravention of the Rules of 1996. With regard to the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat for issuing patta, it is specifically observed that there is no compliance of the Rules for issuing patta. Moreover, Bhinya Ram Sarpanch has acted illegally and got issued patta in his own favour as well as in favour of his brother and sons. Therefore, he has committed illegality and voilated the Panchayati Raj Rules of
13. This Court while hearing the matter, perused the entire record of the case. It appears from the record that one Daula Ram has put his signature as Sarpanch whereas it is admitted fact of the case that Bhinya Ram himself is the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat
14. Therefore, In my opinion, not only on the ground on which the learned Addl. Collector set aside the patta but also on the ground that pattas have been issued illegally on the basis of fabricated documents while putting signatures of Daula Ram as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Undoo, there does not arise any occasion for interference.
15. Consequently, all these four writ petitions are dismissed.
16. However, I deem it just and proper to direct the Secretary to the Government, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur to hold enquiry into the matter and take appropriate action, including initiation of departmental or criminal proceedings against the responsible persons, if so warranted.