CRLR/344/2009 of V.SUMER MAL CHOPRA Vs STATE and ORS. on 24 December 2011

Facts

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.344/2009V.Sumermal Chopra. VS. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Date of Order :: 24 December, 2011.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

Mr.Mahesh Thanvi, for the petitioner.

Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, PP, for the respondent State.Mr.CS Rajpurohit, for the respondents.

...

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present revision petition has been filed by thepetitioner/complainant challenging the order dated 7.3.2006passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases,Jodhpur in connection with F.I.R. No.212/2003 and F.R.No.99/2004 whereby the protest petition filed by thepetitioner has been rejected and the F.R. submitted by theACB in the matter has been accepted.

Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal ofthe present revision are that the petitioner filed a complaintbefore the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases,Jodhpur with the allegations that there was a plotmeasuring 4032 sq.ft., being the ancestral property of oneBagataram Purohit situated at village Sayla. The plot waspurchased by Rikhab Chand Suthar for a sum ofRs.2,50,000/-. Thereafter, Rikhab Chand showing the plotto be of his own ancestral property made an applicationbefore the panchayat for issuance of the patta and the Sarpanch Kistura Ram directed the ward panchasShambhoo Singh, Jugraj and Mohan Lal to inspect thesubmit the report and after the report was so submitted, arecommendation was made under the Panchayati Raj Rules,1996 particularly, Rule 157(b) thereof for the issuance ofpatta of the property in question and accordingly, the pattawas issued after deposition of Rs.200/- on 3.1.2002.

The said complaint was filed by the complainant withthe A.C.B., Jodhpur where enquiry was conducted. After thepreliminary enquiry, F.I.R. No.212/2003 was registered forthe offences under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act and Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC andinvestigation commenced. During the course ofinvestigation, the Bureau came to the conclusion that theplot in question was purchased by Rikhab Chand fromBagataram who was in possession thereof for more than 50years as the property was his ancestral property andthereafter, the purchaser Rikhab Chand made an applicationfor issuance of the patta and the patta was validly issuedbecause the possession of the plot was 50 years old. Uponconsideration of Rule 157 of the Rules of 1996, the Bureaucame to a conclusion that for a constructed property inexistence for more than 50 years, a patta can be issued ondeposition of Rs.200/-. The said F.R. was accepted by theSpecial Judge initially on 30.11.2004 whereupon thepetitioner filed a revision petition before this Court challenging the order of acceptance of F.R. and the matterwas remanded back to the learned Special Judge forproviding the petitioner with an opportunity of being heardand thereafter to pass a fresh order.

The learned Special Judge considered the matter againon the F.R. after providing an opportunity of being heard tothe petitioner and by the order dated 7.3.2006, the F.R. hasbeen accepted. Thus, the petitioner has approached thisCourt by way of the present revision seeking direction forsetting aside the order dated 7.3.2006 accepting the F.R.filed against the respondents no.2 to 7.

Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that the order impugned is perse illegaland also an abuse of process of law. It is submitted thatsince the possession of the plot for the period in excess of50 years was not with the purchaser Rikhab Chand,therefore, it was not at all justified for the learned SpecialJudge to have accepted the F.R. It is submitted that by theact of issuance of the patta even without the registration ofsale, a loss of Rs.56,236/- was caused to the State andlikewise, a wrongful gain was caused to Rikhab Chand.Thus, it is submitted that the order impugned be set asideand direction be issued to the learned Special Judge toconsider the matter afresh and pass a fresh order on theFR.

Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the order impugned isabsolutely justified. It is submitted that as per Rule 157 ofthe Rules of 1996, it is clear that a patta can be issued bythe panchayat for a property which is in existence for theperiod in excess of 50 years for a sum of Rs.100/- only andfor a property which has been in existence within a periodof 50 years at a rate of Rs.200/-. Thus, it is submitted thatsince the property in question was admittedly in existencefor more than 50 years and because Rikhab Chandpurchased the said property from the original ownerthereof, the panchayat was very much entitled to issue apatta after charging a sum of Rs.200/- as per Rule 157(b)of the Rules of 1996.

I have given by thoughtful consideration to thearguments advanced at the bar and have carefully perusedthe impugned order as well as the provisions of Rules of1996.

For the convenience sake, Rule 157(b) is quoted herein below :- “157. Regularisation of old houses.- Where thepersons are in Possession of the old houses in Abadi landand desire to get a patta issued patta may be issued bythe Panchayat after depositing charges as under :- (a) For old houses constructed more than fifty years ago. Rs.100/-Rs.100/- (b) For old houses constructed during last fifty years fromthe date of commencement of these rules.

Rs.200/-”

From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it becomes apparent that the panchayat is very much entitled to issue apatta for a property which has been constructed within aperiod of 50 years after charging a sum of Rs.200/- only. Ashas been observed above, the patta was issued by thepanchayat after charging Rs.200/-. Thus, it cannot be saidthat any irregularity has been committed by the Panchayatin issuing the patta in this manner. That apart, the learnedtrial judge has observed that the proceedings in relation toregistration were also pending before the Sub-Registrar.Thus, it cannot be said that the action of the respondentRikhab Chand in making an application and procuring thepatta in question and the act of the other respondents whoare Sarpanch and Panchas of panchayat in issuing the pattato the purchaser Rikhab Chand suffers from any irregularityor illegality so as to tantamount to be an offence. Thus, theorder impugned whereby the F.R. accepted, cannot be saidto be illegal or unjust by any stretch of imagination.

Accordingly, the present revision petition, being bereftof any force, is hereby dismissed.

[Sandeep Mehta],J.

/S.Phophaliya/