[2025:RJ-JP:24356] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3801/2025 Gajanand Lakhera S/o Sh. Nangram Lakhera, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Naila, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Satyanarayan S/o Sh. Nathu, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Naila, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Girraj S/o Sh. Nathu, Aged About 53 Years, Village Naila, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. Pradhan Panchyat Samiti Jamwaramgarh, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mr. Parth Singh Dhaked Mr. Gourav Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Tomar Mr. D.K. Dixit JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Additional District Collector-I, Jaipur the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a patta of the land in question was illegally allotted to the respondent and the same was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act of 1994’) before the Standing Committee of the [2025:RJ-JP:24356] (2 of 4) [CW-3801/2025] concerned Panchayat Samiti, Jamwaramgarh. Counsel submits that the Block Development Officer of the concerned Panchayat Samiti put a note that the appeal was barred by the limitation but subsequently, the appeal was found to be filed within the period of limitation and the Standing Committee came to the conclusion that the patta was illegally issued to the respondents and accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the patta issued in favour of the respondent was quashed. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.06.2022, the respondents preferred a revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 before the Court of Additional District Collector, Jaipur and the same was allowed and the order dated 08.06.2022 issued by the Standing Committee was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to the Standing Committee to decide the same afresh. Counsel submits that while passing the aforesaid order, the Revisional Authority was of the view that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the BDO, hence, the Appellate Authority was not having any authority to review its own order. Counsel submits that the aforesaid finding is contrary to the record and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was never rejected by the BDO rather the BDO has no power to hear and decide the appeal. It is only the Standing Committee which was competent to hear and decide the appeal. Counsel submits that the Appellate Authority has considered each and every aspect of the matter and found that the patta was illegally allotted to the respondents but even then overlooking all the above material aspect of the matter, the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been quashed and the matter has unnecessarily been [2025:RJ-JP:24356] (3 of 4) [CW-3801/2025] remanded for its fresh adjudication on merits, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that a valid patta was issued to the respondents, after following the due process of law, which was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal and the Appellate Authority, without granting any opportunity of hearing, cancelled the patta and this fact has been appreciated by the Revisional Authority that the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been quashed and remanded the matter for its fresh adjudication, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the entire record indicates that patta of the land in question was allotted to the respondents which was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Act of 1994 before the prescribed Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti. It appears that before deciding the appeal, the BDO put a note that the appeal was barred by limitation and subsequently, this fact was verified by the Standing Committee i.e. Appellate Authority who found that the appeal was not barred by limitation and thereafter, the appeal was heard on its merit and the patta issued in favour of the respondents was cancelled. 6. Perusal of the order dated 08.06.2022 indicates that at the time of the aforesaid order, the stand of the respondents was not taken into account and the aforesaid order has been passed and this fact has been noted by the Revisional Authority and the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been quashed and the [2025:RJ-JP:24356] (4 of 4) [CW-3801/2025] matter has been remitted for its fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the respective parties. 7. It is the settled proposition of law whenever any adverse order is passed against a person, it is bounden duty of the authority concerned to give him or her at least one opportunity of hearing but in the instant case, the Appellate Authority failed to discharge the aforesaid duty and straightaway passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2022. 8. This Court finds no error in the order of the remand passed by the Revisional Authority, hence interference of this Court is not warranted and the present writ petition stands dismissed. 9. Before parting with this order, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal on its merits instead of rejecting the same by treating as time barred, after providing due opportunities of hearing to the respective parties, within a period of one month from the date of their appearance before the Appellate Authority. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 30.07.2025. 11. It goes without saying that the Appellate Authority would decide the appeal on its merit without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Revisional Authority. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/13