Raj HC dismisses appeal against cancellation of Gram Panchayat patta, holds nepotism and procedural violations vitiate allotment

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging cancellation of a Gram Panchayat patta, holding that allotment of public land made in violation of statutory provisions and tainted by nepotism cannot be sustained in law. The Court emphasized that possession, construction, or financial investment cannot legitimize an allotment that is fundamentally illegal.

The Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal passed the order in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 327/2026, Mahipal vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on March 13, 2026.

The appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by a Single Judge, who had refused to interfere with the order of the District Collector, Pali dated November 29, 2022, cancelling a lease deed (patta) issued in favour of the appellant.

The appellant claimed that he had been granted a residential patta by the Gram Panchayat on April 20, 2018 after depositing the requisite amount as per DLC rates. He further contended that he had raised construction on the plot and obtained an electricity connection, asserting long-standing possession over the land.

Subsequently, private respondents filed a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act before the Collector, Pali, seeking cancellation of the patta. The Collector allowed the revision and annulled the allotment, which was later upheld by the Single Judge.

The appellant argued that the authorities had ignored official reports of the Gram Vikas Adhikari and Vikas Adhikari indicating that the land formed part of abadi area and that his family was in possession since ancestral times. It was further contended that similar pattas had been issued to other residents and that the allotment was in accordance with applicable rules.

After examining the record, the High Court found that the allotment was vitiated by serious irregularities and conflict of interest. The Court noted that the inspection report revealed that pattas had been issued to close relatives of the Sarpanch, including family members, without following due procedure, indicating misuse of public office for private benefit.

The Court highlighted three major illegalities:

• The patta was issued under Rule 157(1), meant for regularization of old houses, whereas the land was a vacant plot
• The Sarpanch violated Rule 47 by participating in a decision involving his own relative
• Multiple procedural lapses, including undated applications, contradictory records, incomplete documentation, and non-compliance with Rules 145–155 governing allotment

It was also found that the mandatory 30-day objection period was curtailed to 7 days and that approval from the competent authority was not obtained despite the lease amount exceeding ₹50,000.

A crucial factor considered by the Court was the admitted familial relationship between the appellant and the then Sarpanch. The Bench observed that this undisputed relationship clearly established conflict of interest and rendered the allotment suspect.

The Court remarked that such actions bore the “unmistakable imprint of nepotism and favouritism,” where public authority was misused to extend undue benefit to a family member at the cost of transparency and fairness in the administration of public land.

Rejecting the appellant’s reliance on possession and construction, the Court reiterated a settled legal principle that no right can arise from an illegal allotment. Even if possession existed or investments were made, such factors cannot override statutory violations.

The Court endorsed the Single Judge’s observation that hardship or equities cannot validate an allotment that is contrary to law.

The High Court affirmed that under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, the Collector has wide revisional powers to examine the legality and propriety of pattas issued by Gram Panchayats and to correct irregularities or illegality.

The Bench held that the Collector’s decision to cancel the patta fell squarely within this jurisdiction and was legally justified.

Holding that the allotment was made in clear violation of statutory provisions and tainted by nepotism, the Court found no merit in the appeal. The Division Bench upheld the orders of the revisional authority and the Single Judge, and dismissed the appeal.

Accordingly, the patta cancellation stands affirmed, and the direction to restore possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat remains in force.

Case Title
Mahipal vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 327/2026

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur

Bench
Hon’ble Justice Arun Monga
Hon’ble Justice Sunil Beniwal

Date of Order
13 March 2026

Advocates
For the Appellant
Mr. Jai Kishan Rankawat

For the Respondents
Dr. Sachin Acharya, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kunal Bishnoi
Mr. Dinesh
Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit