[2025:RJ-JP:22295] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7600/2025 Sanjay Kumar Gupta Son Of Raman Lal Gupta, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Village Malakhera, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Anil Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Ram Charan Sharma, Resident Of Village Malakhera, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar. 2. Gram Panchayat Malakhera, Panchayat Samiti, Malakhera, District Alwar Through Sarpanch. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Bipin Gupta Mr.Vijay Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vaibhav Bhargava JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/05/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Additional Collector-II, Alwar, the instant writ petition has been preferred. 2. By passing the order impugned, the Additional Collector has passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the record and site in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a valid patta was issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner on 01.06.2023 and the same was registered on 12.09.2023 and thereafter, the petitioner sought permission from the competent authority to raise constructions over the patta land. Counsel [2025:RJ-JP:22295] (2 of 3) [CW-7600/2025] submits that the construction was going on full swing and in the meantime, the validity of the patta of the petitioner was assailed by the respondents by way of filing the revision petition before the Assistant Collector. Counsel submits that if at all the respondents are/ were aggrieved by the patta, they could have availed the remedy of filing appeal under Section 61 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, but in spite of doing so, they file a revision petition which is not maintainable. Counsel submits that under the revisional jurisdiction, the validity of the patta cannot be assailed, hence, the Revisional Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the Revisional Authority is competent to hear and decide the revision petition against the patta which have been illegally issued in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that finding a prima facie case, the interim order was passed on 28.04.2025 asking the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the site and record of the land in question, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Several versions and cross versions have been raised by both the sides with regard to validity of the patta and competence of the Revisional Authority to hear and entertain the revision petition, this Court is not going to enter into the controversy raised by either side at this stage, because the matter is till sub [2025:RJ-JP:22295] (3 of 3) [CW-7600/2025] judice before the Revisional Authority. Both petitioner as well as respondents would be at liberty to make their submissions before the Revision Authority about the maintainability or non- maintainability of the revision petition. 7. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing direction to the Revisional Authority to hear and decide the revision petition expeditiously as early as possible within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. In case, the petitioner submits an application for vacation of the aforesaid order, the Revisional Authority would pass appropriate orders, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /130