[2025:RJ-JP:4877] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9837/2017 Vijay Pal S/o Shri Govind Ram, aged about 53 years Resident Of Katrathal, Tehsil And District Sikar Raj.. ----Petitioner Versus 1. 2. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj Department Government Secretariat Jaipur Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Katrathal Tehsil And District Sikar Raj.. 3. Tarachand Previous Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Katrathal Tehsil And District Sikar Raj.. 4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Katrathal, Tehsil And District Sikar Raj.. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Saurbh Sharma Mr. Prateek Saxena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 04/02/2025 This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the District Collector, Sikar whereby, while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner, the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Panchayat Samiti Piprali, District Sikar cancelling the patta issued in petitioner’s favour, has been affirmed. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was issued a patta by the Gram Panchayat Khairthal on 23.09.2009. The appeal preferred thereagainst came to be allowed by the Panchayat Samiti Piprali vide order dated 21.11.2011 and the revision petition preferred thereagainst by the petitioner has been [2025:RJ-JP:4877] (2 of 2) [CW-9837/2017] dismissed by the District Collector vide order impugned dated 29.05.2017. Assailing the order, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Collector failed to appreciate that the subject patta pertains to ‘abadi land’ and not to ‘banjar johad charagah’ as held by him. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dated 29.05.2017 be quashed and set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the findings recorded by the District Collector vide order dated 29.05.2017, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. There is a concurrent factual finding by the Panchayat Samiti Piprali as also by the District Collector, Sikar that the land of the subject patta comprised of ‘pasture land’ and could not have been allotted by the Gram Panchayat Khairthal. Neither before the Panchayat Saimiti Piprali nor, before the revisional authority and nor, before this Court, the petitioner has placed on record any material to substantiate his submission that the subject land was part of ‘abadi land’ and not of ‘charagah’. It is also not challenged that the Gram Panchayat did not have any authority to issue patta in respect of ‘charagah land’. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/112