1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3263/2008 (Kishan Lal Vs. Bhairu Lal & Ors.) Date of order : 20.05.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Farzand Ali for the petitioner. By the instant writ petition, order Annex.6 dated 03.3.2008 passed by District Collector, Chittorgarh in Revision No.21/06 has been challenged by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the order impugned. It appears that the petitioner was granted permission by the respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat Sahnava for opening the door. The petitioner sought permission on the premise that it is a public way and therefore, he has a right to open the door and the permission was granted by the respondent No.3. The respondent No.1 filed a civil suit being Civil Original Suit No.94/2000 (98/96) in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Chittorgarh. That suit came to be decreed by 2 judgment and decree dated 18.9.2003 in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.1 and 2 herein holding therein that the land which the petitioner claims to be a way and the respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat granted permission to open the gate, belongs to the respondent No.1 and 2 as it is their Gavadi and therefore, decision went against the petitioner. However, an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2003 has been filed before the Additional District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh which is yet pending and it appears from the order impugned that in the said appeal there is an order to maintain status-quo. The order granting permission by the Gram Panchayat respondent No.3 came to be challenged by the respondents No.1 and 2 who are plaintiffs in the civil suit before the District Collector respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 noticing that the suit has been decreed in favour of respondent-plaintiffs and therefore, the Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction go grant permission for opening the door on the ground that it is a public way, whereas the Civil Court after adjudication held that it is a part of land of respondents No.1 and 2. When the Civil Court is seized of the matter, in my view, the respondent No.4 District Collector was justified in cancelling the permission granted by the respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat. Ultimately, these questions are to be decided by the Civil Court, more particularly before the Court in which the appeal is pending i.e. Additional District Judge No.1, 3 Chittorgarh. In these circumstances, in my view, no case for interference at this stage is made out. However, it would be appropriate to direct the Additional District Judge, No.1, Chittorgarh to hear and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2003 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Chittorgarh, utmost expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today and the order impugned Annex.6 would be subject to the decision of the Appellate Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 4 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 6020/08 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3263/2008 (Kishan Lal Vs. Bhairu Lal & Ors.) Date of order : 20.05.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Farzand Ali for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp