[2026:RJ-JP:140] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14502/2023 Abdul Rasheed S/o Shri Gunnikhan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No.255, Shastri Nagar, Salasar Road, Near Zanana Hospital, Sikar Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Cum Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj) Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division Jaipur 3. The District Collector (Panchayat), Sikar 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sikar 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Dhod, District Sikar 6. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhod, District Sikar 7. Hasina Bano, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kirdoli, Panchayat Samiti Dhod District Sikar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj Mr. Abhishek Paliwal for Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 06/01/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur, vide which the proceedings initiated against the respondent No.7 – Hasina Bano, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kirdoli, Panchayat Samiti Dhod, District Sikar have been closed. [2026:RJ-JP:140] (2 of 5) [CW-14502/2023] 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that it is on his complaint that proceedings were initiated against the respondent No.7 with respect to issuance of three residential pattas in Khasra No.790 of Gram Panchayat Kirdoli. The allegations levelled in the complaint were that the respondent No.7 has travelled beyond its authority and jurisdiction and has even violated Rule 140, 154, 155, 157(1), 160 and 161(2)(gha) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the said three residential pattas were issued in favour of 1. Mr. Ram Lal, 2. Mr. Anil Kumar and 3. Ms. Sumitra Devi, who are very well known to the respondent No.7, and thus, issuance of pattas has been illegally done, for which respondent No.7 deserves to be duly punished. 4. Learned counsel further submits that on the basis of the complaint dated 22.09.2021, which was received in the Office of the respondents on 23.09.2021, an enquiry was conducted, in pursuance of which the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhod, Headquarters Sikar, submitted its reply on 29.12.2021, wherein it was held that the pattas under question were issued in the khatedari land, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. Pursuant thereto, a charge sheet was issued to respondent No.7 and an enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. The respondent No.7, in the reply filed by her, submitted that all the three pattas have been surrendered and the same were issued merely on account of inadvertence, and there is no loss of public property as pattas have been issued only to the [2026:RJ-JP:140] (3 of 5) [CW-14502/2023] persons who were occupying the land in respect of which the pattas have been issued. 5. Considering the facts available on record, the Divisional Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 26.07.2023, held that it seems to be a case of issuance of patta by inadvertent error and no case of malafide intention is made out and accordingly, the proceedings have been closed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once it was found in the enquiry report that the pattas have been issued contrary to the rules and beyond the jurisdiction, merely on account of fact that the pattas have been surrendered by the persons in whose favour they were issued, cannot be a basis for dropping a proceedings. As a matter of fact, the said surrender of pattas confirms the fact that they were wrongly issued. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon order dated 24.01.2008 passed by this Court at Principal seat in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.554/2008 titled as Navla Ram Vs. Additional Collector, Barmer and Others, along with other connected matters to buttress his submission and further submits that the Special Appeal preferred against the said order being D.B. SAW No.1086/2008 also stood dismissed vide judgment dated 29.01.2009. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, submits that the petitioner is merely a complainant and he lacks locus to file the instant writ petition, as once the complaint is made, the role of the complainant is over. In support of the said submission learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case [2026:RJ-JP:140] (4 of 5) [CW-14502/2023] of Surendra Kumar Garg & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2005) 1 WLC 243. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submit that it is not a case where public land has been allotted in favour of any person so as to cause loss to public exchequer, and the issuance of pattas by the respondent No.7 in the capacity of Sarpanch was only on account of inadvertence, which has been duly considered in the order dated 26.07.2023, and hence, there is no illegality in the said order and consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. A perusal of the order dated dated 26.07.2023 makes it evident that the same has been passed after considering the entire documents and the evidences available on record, including the findings recorded in the enquiry report. The said order duly records that all the three residential pattas, which have been already surrendered by the respective patta holders, were issued in favour of persons who were already residing on the land in respect of which pattas have been issued and the said land was situated in a densely populated area and thus, it seems to have been issued on account of inadvertence. The order categorically records that no case of malafide intention has been made out. Further, considering the fact that no loss to public was caused by issuance of said pattas, as no public land was involved, no infirmity can be found in order dated 26.07.2023. With respect to the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts of the said case are very much distinguishable as in the said case the issue was with respect to forged signature being [2026:RJ-JP:140] (5 of 5) [CW-14502/2023] made by the Sarpanch, which is not at all the case in the present matter and thus, no assistance can be drawn by the orders relied upon by the petitioner. 12. Consequently, no illegality is found in the order dated 26.07.2023 and the writ petition is dismissed. 13. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DANISH USMANI /73