SBCWP NO.5124/2000. { 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5124/2000. Jagdish Prasad @ Jeewan Vs. Additional District Collector Bharatpur & Ors. Date of order:- May 12, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sohan Lal Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Collector Bharatpur dated 14/6/2000 whereby revision petition filed by private respondent Devi Ram was allowed and the permission granted to the petitioner for raising construction by Gram Panchayat Andhiyari was set-aside and also the order passed by the Administrative Standing Committee of Panchayat Samiti Roopwas dismissing appeal of respondent was set-aside. 2) Shri Sohan Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that sole premise on which the District Collector set-aside the letter of permission was that status-quo order was passed in favour of the private respondent who was petitioner SBCWP NO.5124/2000. { 2 } before the Additional Collector with regard to same land that the Gram Panchayat could not examine the question of title with regard to the possession of the petitioner on the disputed land. It is contended that the said civil suit filed by the private respondent against the petitioner has since been dismissed by the judgment of the civil court dated 31/3/2004. Contention raised by the respondent is only an afterthought that which has wrongly been accepted by the revisional court. Learned counsel submitted that the whole premise on which revision petition of the respondent was accepted has ceased to exist. Impugned order of Additional Collector Bharatpur be therefore set-aside and those of the Gram Panchayat and Panchayat Samiti be restored. 3) Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the civil court merely dismissed the civil suit filed by the private respondent which means that his claim of title and possession about the disputed land was not accepted by the court. It cannot however be deduced therefrom that petitioner’s possession or title was accepted. Learned counsel referred to that part of the order passed by Additional Collector Bharatpur in which reference is made to site plan prepared by the committee of ward SBCWP NO.5124/2000. { 3 } panchs which inspected the site and mentioned about possession of private respondent Devi Ram. 4) Having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the subsequently development that civil suit filed by private respondent for declaration and injunction has been dismissed by the civil court, premise on which revision petition was accepted by the learned Additional Collector Bharatpur now no longer remained valid but at the same time, issues with regard to title and possession of the petitioner needs fresh adjudication because Committee of Ward Panchs had granted permission for raising construction. Gram Panchayat unanimously passed resolution and appeal filed by respondent was also dismissed by the Standing Committee vide unanimous vote. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed in part. The order dated 14/6/2000 (Ann.6) passed by Additional Collector Bharatpur is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to him to decide the same afresh after due consideration to the aforesaid discussion especially the judgment passed by the civil court. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil