1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1343 of 1999 MUKHRAM V/S RAM CHANDRA & ORS Mr. SUNIL BENIWAL for Mr. JR BENIWAL, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. KK BISSA, GOVT. COUNSEL for the State. Mr. PRADEEP CHOUDHARY AND Mr.NISHANT for Mr.JS CHOUDHARY, for the private respondent Date of Order : 14.5.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. J U D G M E N T By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 17.9.1999 dismissing the writ petition. The necessary facts are, that the respondent no. 1 was granted Patta on 11.10.1987. That was challenged by the petitioner, by filing appeal, which was accepted. Then, in revision that order had been set aside. The Patta was challenged on the ground, that the land covered by the Patta, forms part of public street, and was encroachment. Learned Single Judge found, that from the order of the learned Additional Collector it clearly appears, that the width of the road in front of plot of the respondent no.1 was 23 feet, whereas in southern direction of his plot, the width of the road is hardly 20-22 ft. 2 Therefore, the cancellation was found to be improper. The learned Single Judge also found, that considering the reply, affidavit and the documents submitted along with the same and the photographs, it is clear, that the Additional Collector has not committed any error in allowing the revision petition. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the impugned order, by contending, that Panchayat had granted Patta to two persons, one being respondent no.1, and the other being Om Prakash, whose house is situated towards further west of house of respondent no.1, and the Patta granted to Om Prakash was found to be with respect to the land forming part of the public street, therefore, his Patta had been cancelled, while the Patta in favour of private respondent has been upheld, which is wholly bad. It was submitted, that the land covered by Patta is part of the public street, and simply because the width of the road towards further south is 20-22 ft. that cannot be a decisive factor, for the purpose of arriving at any conclusion, as to whether the land in question, with respect to which Patta had been granted, was part of public street, or not. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents available on record. A look at the site plan produced by the respondent as Annexure R/4 does show, that there is a street south to north, which, in the north joins the 3 main road of village Nohar to Rawatsar going East- West, and it is in this street, that towards east thereof is the house of private respondent, while towards the west is the house of Om Prakash. Width of this street in front of house of Bihari Pandit is quite sizable upto the house of Aad Ram. From the point of house of Aad Ram the width of the house has been substantially reduced, and has gone on reducing tapered towards further south, after house of Ramchander, the private respondent, and the house of Amichand, Sahab Ram etc. We pointedly put to the learned counsel for the appellant, as to whether there is any dispute about correctness of the site plan, Annexure R/4, and the learned counsel fairly submitted, that this cannot be disputed. Then, referring to Annexure-2, learned counsel for the appellant was asked to show the site plan prepared by the Panchayat Samiti at the time of site inspection on 24.11.1997, but the learned counsel expressed his inability to show that also, in order to establish, that there is any otherwise situation, than as appears from Annexure R/4. With this factual background, in our view, the mere fact that Patta granted in favour of Om Prakash was cancelled, on the ground, that the land covered thereby was forming part of public street, ipso facto cannot furnish a ground to come to the conclusion, that the land covered by the Patta granted in favour of respondent no.1 also forms part of public 4 street. Learned counsel for the appellant is of course correct in contending, that merely because width of the road, or public street, is reducing towards further south, can also not be taken to be sufficient ground to conclude, that the land covered by the particular Patta is not a part of public street, but then, the matter does not end here. It is the appellant, who seeks to challenge the Patta, on the ground, that Patta has been granted with respect to the land, which forms part of public street, and despite repeatedly asking, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material worth the name, rather any semblance thereof, to show, as to how the land covered by the Patta, granted in favour of respondent no.1, forms part of public street. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal thus has no force, and the same is therefore dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/