[2025:RJ-JP:15748] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1087/2010 Rameshwar Lal son of Shri Geeda Ram, aged about 50 years, resident of Thithawato Ki Dhani, Gram Panchayat Mandota Bada, Panchayat Samiti Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Upper District Collector, Sikar (Raj.) 2. Panchayat Samiti Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.) through its Block Development Officer. 3. Gram Panchayat Mandota Bada, Panchayat Samiti Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.) through its Secretary. 4. Smt. Mohri Devi wife of Shri Jeevan Ram, resident of Thithawato Ki Dhani, Gram Panchayat mandota Bada, panchayat Samiti Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.) Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC Mr. Umesh Choudhary for Mr. V.D. Gathala JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Fatehpur, by which the ‘patta’ of the petitioner dated 23.12.1990 has been cancelled. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Additional District [2025:RJ-JP:15748] (2 of 4) [CW-1087/2010] Collector, Sikar, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 13.11.2009 on the ground of limitation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ‘patta’ of the land in question was allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat on 23.12.1990 and the same was assailed by the respondent No.4 before the Panchayat Samiti, Fatehpur, wherein, neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and in his absence, the order impugned has been passed by which ‘patta’ of the petitioner has been cancelled. 4. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware about passing of the aforesaid order and he assailed the aforesaid order after getting knowledge of the same by way of filing revision petition. Counsel submits that the revision petition submitted by the petitioner was not decided on its merits rather the same was rejected on technical count of limitation. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that ‘patta’ of the same land in question was allotted in favour of the respondent No.4 way back in the year 1973 after following the due process of law. Counsel submits that ‘patta’ issued in favour of the petitioner subsequently with regard to the same land in question was illegal, which was cancelled by the Panchayat Samiti by passing the order dated 23.02.2007. Counsel submits that under these [2025:RJ-JP:15748] (3 of 4) [CW-1087/2010] circumstances, a valid, cogent and reasoned order has been passed, which requires no interference of this Court. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the order dated 23.02.2007 indicates that the validity of the ‘patta’ of the petitioner was assailed by the respondent No.4 by way of filing an appeal. Perusal of the entire order indicates that neither any notice was issued to the petitioner, nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him and straightaway the order impugned has been passed, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. It is settled proposition of law that before passing any adverse order against a person, at least, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to him in order to comply with the principles of natural justice, which is admittedly not given to the petitioner. 9. On this count alone, the order dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Fatehpur, District Sikar is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence thereof, the subsequent order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Additional District Collector, Sikar also stands quashed and set aside. 10. The matter is remitted to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Fatehpur to decide the appeal submitted by the respondent No.4 afresh, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.4 and all respective parties, strictly in accordance with law. [2025:RJ-JP:15748] (4 of 4) [CW-1087/2010] 11. Needless to observe that the Appellate Authority would pass fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/40