HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1687/2025 Sita Ram Sharma S/o. Ladhu Ram Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, R/o. Village Jorpura (Sundariyawas) Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Vaidh Roopkishore Sharma S/o. Vaidh Bansidhar Sharma, R/o. Village And Post Jorpura (Sundariyawas) Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur. 2. Ramavatar Dhadhich S/o. Shri Rameshwar Lal Sharma, R/o. Village And Post Jorpura (Sundariyawas) Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur. 3. Gram Panchayat Jorpura (Sundariyawas), Through Sarpanch Village Panchayat Jorpura (Sundariyawas) Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur. 4. Banshi Lal S/o. Late Chena Ram, R/o. Village Jorpura (Sundariyawas) Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur. 5. Chitar S/o. Late Chena Ram, R/o. Village Jorpura (Sundariyawas) Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sankalp Sogani, Ms. Muskan Verma, Mr. Umang Jain and Mr. Anuj Rohilla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parmender Dadhich Mr. Ashok Mishra JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur, the instant writ petition has been preferred, whereby, the Additional Collector (2 of 4) [CW-1687/2025] has cancelled the patta No.1 dated 16.12.2021 issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the subject land was recorded as Siwaichak land before 1977 and nature of this land was converted into abadi land after 1977, hence, there was no question of treating the subject land as abadi and issuing patta in favour of the respondent by the concerned Gram Panchayat. Counsel submits that after holding inquiry and after following due process of law and relevant Rules, patta No.1 dated 16.12.2021 was issued by the Panchayat in favour of the petitioner, which was registered by the Sub Registrar, but without any authority of law, the Additional Collector has quashed the same, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the respondents are in possession of the patta of the same subject land, which was issued in their favour by the Panchayat in the year 1972. Counsel submits that a suit for injunction has been preferred by the respondents against the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat, Jorpura with the allegation that the petitioner is bent upon to eject them from the subject land. Counsel submits that a temporary injunction application, submitted by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, was allowed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kishangarh, Rainwal, District Jaipur vide order dated 06.10.2021 and the parties were directed to maintain status (3 of 4) [CW-1687/2025] quo with regard to the construction over the subject land, but the Panchayat has illegally issued the allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner by issuing patta. Counsel submits that when the matter is subjudice before the competent Civil Court, wherein, several issues have been framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the patta should not have been issued in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that on this count alone, a revision petition, which was submitted before the Additional Collector has rightly been allowed vide impugned order dated 08.11.2024 and the patta has been rightly cancelled. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This Court is not going into the controversy whether the petitioner or the respondents are having their rightful claim over the subject land, as this issue is required to be decided by the competent Civil Court, where the civil dispute has been raised by the respondent against the petitioner. 6. This fact cannot be lost site that when the petitioner wanted to eject the respondents from the subject land, a suit for injunction along with temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was submitted and the said application was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2021 restraining the petitioner to raise construction over the subject land and maintain status quo and not alienate the subject property. (4 of 4) [CW-1687/2025] 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, under such circumstances, the Panchayat should not have issued patta in favour of the petitioner. The only contention of the petitioner is that a forged patta has been issued in favour of the respondents. 8. Considering the arguments put forward by both the sides, this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be decided by the competent Civil Court with regard to rights of the parties after taking into account the evidence produced by them. This Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the Additional Collector. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the Senior Civil Judge to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending suit expeditiously, as early as possible within a period of 18 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Needless to observe that the Civil Court would decide the suit on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides without being influenced and prejudiced by the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur. Till then, the parties are directed not to create third party interest. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/14