HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6659/2025 Brijmohan Sharma, S/o Late Shri Govindnarayan Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ramkaran, S/o Shri Jhutharam, Resident Of Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Gram Panchayat Goner, Through Its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Goner, Panchayat Samiti Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Chandra Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/05/2025 1. Matter comes up on interim application No.01/2025 submitted by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the Jaipur Nagar Nigam (Greater) as party respondent in the array of cause title. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Government Order No.P10 issued by the Department of Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan, the jurisdiction and administrative control of the Gram Panchayat, Goner, has been merged into Jaipur Nagar Nigam Greater, so under the changed circumstances, Nagar Nigam Greater is a necessary party to be impleaded in the array of cause title. (2 of 4) [CW-6659/2025] 3. Application stands allowed for the reasons stated therein. Jaipur Nagar Nigam Greater is ordered to be substituted as respondent No.3 in the array of cause title. 4. With the consent of counsel for the petitioner, arguments have been heard at admission stage. 5. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Additional Collector-I, Jaipur, by which patta issued in favour of the respondent No.1 has been cancelled and the matter has been remitted to the Gram Panchayat, Goner, Panchayat Samiti Sanganer to examine the matter afresh by affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties in accordance with the provisions contained under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules. 1996. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by creating a forged and fabricated documents, the respondent No.1 got a patta from the concerned Gram Panchayat on 26.06.1982 against which the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Collector. Counsel submits that no such patta was ever issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat. Counsel submits that though the patta in question has been cancelled by the Additional Collector, but the matter has been remanded for fresh disposal of the patta. Counsel submits that there was no need for issuing such direction as the forgery committed by the respondent No.1 by fabricated document is ipso facto clear on the record. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. (3 of 4) [CW-6659/2025] 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 8. Perusal of the record as well as the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Additional Collector indicate that it was found that patta in question was not issued in favour of the respondent No.1, that is why, the patta was cancelled, but at the same time, the matter has been remitted to the concerned Gram Panchayat for passing fresh orders after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties in accordance with the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 9. Since the disputed questions of fact are involved with regard to correctness and fabrication of the alleged patta, the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its writ jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The authority concerned would be in a better position to examine all these facts and pass appropriate orders on the basis of the documents and evidence submitted by the respective parties. 10. This Court finds no error in the order impugned as the same is not against the petitioner, rather that gives an opportunity not only to the petitioner, but also to the respondent No.1 to submit relevant documents in evidence in support of their case and thereafter, the authority concerned would pass necessary and proper orders. The order passed by the Court below is just and proper, which requires no interference of this Court. (4 of 4) [CW-6659/2025] 11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/121