1 Ramesh Purohit Vs. Additional District Collector, Pali & Ors. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.907/2010) Dated : 01.02.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioner. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.01.2010 passed by the Additional District Collector, Pali, whereby pending consideration of the stay application, interim order dated 8.01.2010 earlier granted, has been modified. 2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of 'Patta' of the plot in question issued in favour of the respondents no.3 & 4 before the Additional District Collector, Pali, by way of revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. On the stay application being preferred, an ex parte interim order dated 08.01.2010 was passed in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from raising any construction or alienating the property in question and they were directed to maintain the status quo. After service of the notice on 12.01.2010, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 preferred an application for early hearing of the matter. The notice was directed to be issued to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was posted for consideration of the prayer for early hearing on 15.01.2010. However, learned counsel appearing on 2 behalf of the petitioner refused to accept the copy and, therefore, the matter was heard by the Additional District Collector, Pali, on 15.01.2010 and after due consideration, modified the interim order dated 08.01.2010, directing that the contesting respondents shall not sale/transfer the plot in question till further orders. The matter is posted for final hearing on 24.2.2010. 3. Admittedly, before the preponement of date of hearing, the copy of the application was furnished to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the revisional authority, however, he declined to accept the copy. In this view of the matter, the court below was justified in hearing the matter in absence of the counsel. In any cases, the interlocutory order passed by the court below, after due consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter, pending disposal of the revision petition, does not warrant interference by this Court. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the revisional authority shall decide the revision petition expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions as above. (SANGEET LODHA), J. vij