Civil Court Injunction Protecting Property Cannot Be Challenged U/S 97 Of Panchayati Raj Act: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court held that once a civil court has already passed a decree restraining a party from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit property, the same could not be interfered with by initiating proceedings under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (“the Act”).Section 97 of the Act lays down the procedure to file a revision application to the Additional District Collector against the decisions of the relevant authority. The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur was hearing a petition filed against the decision of the Additional District Collector that had rejected the application u/s 97 of the Act filed by the petitioner, on the ground that a civil suit seeking permanent injunction was pending. The application was filed by the petitioner against the issuance of a patta in favour of the predecessor of the respondents, back in the year 1983. It was the case of the petitioner that the patta was issued in gross violation of the procedure provided under law. Hence, it was the duty of the additional district collector to examine its validity and legality. In this light, it was argued that the suit for injunction could not decide the issue regarding the validity of the patta because under Section 97 of the Act, revenue authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the same in a revision petition. After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that firstly the revision petition u/s 97 was filed by the petitioner after a delay of more than 4 years, and that too when a civil suit for permanent injunction was decreed in favour of the respondents. There was no record to show that the petitioner had appealed against this decree. Further, the Court observed that there was no clarity on what steps were taken by the petitioner since the issuance of the patta in 1983, for seeking its cancellation in the lifetime of the predecessor of respondents. It was stated,“The delay in approaching the revision court without any justifiable reasons and after expiry of a reasonable time cannot be held to be bonafide or unintentional. Further, the delay also cannot be said to be bonafide for the reason that the civil suit was filed by the respondents i.e. legal representatives of Vachnaram seeking permanent injunction in the year 2010 which is prior to the filing of the revision petition.”Hence, it was held that once a civil court had already passed order against a party in a suit for permanent injunction, relating to the suit property, it could not be interfered with by initiating proceedings u/s 97 of the Act. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Title: Kapuraram v Bhuri Devi & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 343Click Here To Read/Download Order

Civil Court Injunction Protecting Property Cannot Be Challenged U/S 97 Of Panchayati Raj Act: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

Civil Court Injunction Protecting Property Cannot Be Challenged U/S 97 Of Panchayati Raj Act: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers