[2025:RJ-JP:34901] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11712/2024 Satish Kumar Mittal Son of Late Shri Begraj Mittal, Aged About 58 Years, Resident of 122/4-A, Shanker Nagar (Krishna Nagar), Delhi - 51 Through Registered Power of Attorney, Shyamsunder Punia Son of Shri Sheoji Ram, Resident of Khatushyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rameshwar Lal Son of Late Ram Chandra, Resident of Khatushyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) 2. Sanwar Mal Son of Late Badri Prasad, Resident of Khatushyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) 3. Uttam Kumar Son of Ram Chandra, Resident of Akheypura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) 4. Gram Panchayat Khatushyamji, Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Khatushyamji, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) (Presently It Is Converted Into Municipal Board) 5. Anant Kumar Son of Satpal Tank, Resident of Opposite Government Sr. Secondary School, Reengus, District Sikar (Raj.) 6. Executive Officer, Municipal Board Khatushyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta Ms. Sampati Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/09/2025 1. A challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Additional District Collector, Sikar by [2025:RJ-JP:34901] (2 of 5) [CW-11712/2024] which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the Standing Committee, Gram Panchayat Samiti, Dantaramgarh, Sikar has been rejected. 2. By passing the impugned order dated 02.12.2019 the Standing Committee of the Panchayat has cancelled the patta issued in favour of the respondent No. 5, i.e. Anant Kumar by the Gram Panchayat, Khatushyam. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land belongs to one Ram Chandra who sold part of the same to one Anant Kumar in the year 1980 and thereafter, the remaining part of the subject land was sold to Anant Kumar in the year 1997. Counsel submits that the respondent No. 5 i.e. Anant Kumar, got the patta dated 15.12.1999 of the same subject land from the Panchyat and thereafter he sold the same land to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 07.03.2008. Counsel submits that the same subject land was sold by the respondent No.1 -Rameshwar in favour of Sanwarmal and Uttam Kumar by way of a registered sale deed dated 19.05.2016. Counsel submits that without impleading the petitioner as party respondent before the Standing Committee, an appeal was preferred by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against Anant Kumar for cancellation of the patta issued in his favour. Counsel submits that the said appeal submitted by the respondents has been allowed by the Standing Committee vide impugned order dated 02.12.2019. Counsel further submits that a civil suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed was filed by the petitioner is still lying pending before the District Judge, Sikar hence under these circumstances the [2025:RJ-JP:34901] (3 of 5) [CW-11712/2024] impugned order dated 02.12.2019 should not have been passed by the Standing Committee. Counsel submits that a revision petition against the impugned order dated 02.12.2019 was preferred by the petitioner before the Additional District Collector Sikar, however the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 09.05.2024. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the land in question is a Khatedari land of Ram Chandra and the concerned Gram Panchayat did not have any authority, jurisdiction or competence to issue a patta on the subject Khatedari land. Counsel submits that the panchayat has authority to issue a patta of the abadi land and these facts were appreciated by the Standing Committee that is why the patta issued in favour of Anant Kumar has rightly been cancelled by the Standing Committee vide impugned order dated 02.12.2019. Counsel submits that all these facts were appreciated by the Additional District Collector, Sikar while rejecting the revision petition submitted by the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the present petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are claiming their respective rights on the subject land on the basis of the two different sale deeds which were executed in their favour. The sale deed of the same subject land was executed by Ram [2025:RJ-JP:34901] (4 of 5) [CW-11712/2024] Chandra in favour of Anant Kumar and on the basis of the same, Anant Kumar got the patta of the subject land from the Panchyat and thereafter, Anant Kumar sold the subject land to the petitioner by way of the registered sale deed in the year 2008 and on the other hand, it is the case of the respondent-Rameshwar that the subject land belonged to his father-Ram Chandra and the same was sold by the respondent-Rameshwar to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was the case of the respondents before the Standing Committee that the Gram Pancahyat did not have any jurisdiction or authority to allot the patta of the Khatedari land. It is the case of the petitioner that in the sale deed the subject land was shown as abadi land and not as a khatedari land. 7. This Court is not going into the controversy about the competence of the Panchyat for issuance of the patta in favour of Anant Kumar but looking to the fact that the patta issued in favour of Anant Kumar was assailed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Competent Committee without impleading the petitioner as party in the array of cause title. It appears that the power of attorney of the petitioner appeared before the Panchayat Samiti and submitted certain documents on the record and on the basis of the same, the impugned order dated 02.12.2019 has been passed by the Standing Committee. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, when this fact has come on the record that the petitioner is claiming himself as the owner of the subject land on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in his favour in the year 2008 by the title holder Anant Kumar, it was the bounden duty of the Standing Committee to implead the petitioner as party respondent and then only the [2025:RJ-JP:34901] (5 of 5) [CW-11712/2024] appeal could have been decided by the authority on its merits. When this fact would have been appreciated by the Appellate Authority, the opportunity of hearing could have been given to the petitioner but inspite of the above, the patta issued in favour of Anant Kumar has been cancelled which has violated the principles of natural justice against the petitioner as the petitioner could not get any opportunity to put his stand before the Standing Committee. On this count alone, the impugned order dated 02.12.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence therefore, the subsequent impugned order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Additional District Collector also stands quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted to the Standing Committee Panchayat Samiti, Dantaramgarh to pass fresh order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondents without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court and by the Revisional Court. 10 Needless to observe that the fresh order would be passed by the Standing Committee within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 11. Stay application and all pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aashu/11