1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4109/09 Shyam Sunder & Anr. vs. District Collector, Dausa & Ors. Date of order : 17/4/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri A.K. Bajpai for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the revisional court has erred in law in rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner by impugned order dated 28.1.2009 on the assumption that the civil suit has been decided against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that apart from issuance of patta in favour of the private respondents, the petitioner also filed the civil suit which is presently pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dausa. In the civil suit, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the land in dispute is a land of the way and therefore the respondents be restrained from using the same as their 2 private land. In the course of arguments, learned counsel submitted that the civil suit is still pending, but it is contended that the petitioner has not challenged therein the patta issued to the private respondents by Gram Panchayat on 5.2.1983. Having regard to the facts of the case, I find that the issue whether or not the land in question is a land of way, has to be decided by the Civil Court on the basis of evidence that is led by both the parties. Learned counsel however submitted that the petitioner has not questioned the correctness of patta in the suit and has not impleaded Gram Panchayat as party. If that be so, the petitioner may even now apply for amendment of the suit in accordance with law for addition of prayer and impleadment of Gram Panchayat as party. It is made clear that if such application is made, the same shall be dealt with by the Court concerned as per law. It is made clear that the observations made by Additional District Collector, Dausa in rejecting revision petition of the writ petitioner will not 3 come in the way of entertaining such a dispute by the Civil Court. No interference is however called for with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/