1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9931/07 Smt. Bhonri Vs. Mool Chand & Ors. Date of order : 3/12/2007. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sanjay Mehla for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5.2007 passed by Additional District Collector whereby his revision petition filed against patta issued to respondent no.1 Mool Chand by Gram Panchayat Chhareda on 20.12.2001 was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the land with regard to which patta has been issued to respondent no.1 was already allotted to 2 the petitioner and patta thereof was issued to him on 4.1.1975. The assertion of the respondents is that this land was in his possession and he was having construction of shop / house and stand of the petitioner is factually incorrect. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed the civil suit also and in that suit an order of injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondent no.1 from interfering with his possession. The rejection of the revision petition by the Additional District Collector would affect the merits of his case in the civil suit. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the case of the respondent 3 no.1 before the Additional Collector was that patta issued to the petitioner was for some other land whereas the patta which was issued to him was of the land of khasra no.1797/16. In the patta that was issued to the petitioner, boundaries of the adjoining lands were not indicated and the said patta was not inspected by the Gram Panchayat. The learned Additional Collector in his order ultimately found that the patta that was issued to respondent no.1 was issued after due compliance of the provisions of the Rules, inspection of the Committee of Panches, receipt of the cite report and issuance of notice inviting objections. It was in that context that the learned Additional Collector refused to interfere. The apprehension of the 4 petitioner that rejection of his revision petition would affect merits of his case, however, does not appear to be well founded because this essentially is a question of fact whether the patta of plot that was issued to him was out of lands of khasra nos.1797/16 and whether patta issued to respondent no.1 was of some other land. This Court cannot in exercise of its writ jurisdiction go into and determine such a contentious issue. Already when the petitioner has approached Civil Court and has impleaded the respondent no.1 as party defendant in the suit, that Court is best suited to determine such a disputed question of fact. That Court would also obviously deal defense that may be set up by the respondent no.1 5 and the arguments were raised by him even before the Additional Collector that the patta was issued to him on 20.12.2001 after following the due process of law of which he is in possession and having construction. I do not deem it appropriate to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is however disposed of with the aforesaid clarification. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/