JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this revision against the order of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar (for short, "the ADJ") dated 19th Apr., 86, by which, he reversed the order of SDM-Behror, dated 30th Dec., 85. 2. Non-petitioners Roshan and Mahaveer filed a complaint under section 133, Cr PC against the petitioners and non-petitioners 1 to 9. Their allegation was that the petitioners were having their, Khokhas dumped in the public chowk, which had created nuisance to public, and so, they prayed that the said Khokhas be ordered to be removed. The SDM, Behror, after recording evidence of both the sides, found that the Khokhas were not creating any nuisance at the public chowk he therefore, did not consider it proper to pass any order regarding removal of the Khokhas and dismissed the complaint filed under section 133, Cr PC. Aggrieved by that order, a revision petition was filed by Roshan and Mahaveer before the ADJ, who, vide his order dated 19th Apr., 86. set aside and reversed the order of SDM dated 30th Dec.,85. The petitioners now have preferred this revision feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned ADJ. 3. It has been argued by Mr. Dhankhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had moved the Village Panchayat for granting them a Patta of the place at which their Khokhas were dumped. The Village Panchayat rejected the prayer of the petitioners on 30th May, 84. Thereafter, the petitioners went in appeal to Panchayat Samiti The Panchayat Samiti accepted their appeal, set aside the order of the Village Panchayat, and passed order that Patta be given to the petitioners, with regard to the place, where their Khokhaswere dumped, on payment of Rs. 200/- each. Mr. Dhankhar says that the petitioners have deposited the amount with the Panchayat Samiti. It is also not disputed that a further revision is pending against the order of the Panchayat Samiti before the Collector, Alwar, and that therein on 3rd April, 86, the learned Collector passed an interim order that "Patta" be not prepared and given to the petitioners. 4. Heard both the learned counsel at length and perused the statements recorded by the learned SDM The learned ADJ, in his judgment, has discussed that the learned SDM did not correctly appreciate the evidence. 4. Heard both the learned counsel at length and perused the statements recorded by the learned SDM The learned ADJ, in his judgment, has discussed that the learned SDM did not correctly appreciate the evidence. The allegation of the petitioners was that they were in possession of the place where the Khokhas were dumped by them for the last 20 years, while, the contention of the other side was that the Khokhas were so dumped by the petitioners over there only 21/2 years before. In this regard, the evidence was perused by the learned ADJ, but he did not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned SDM. I have also perused the statements of the witnesses, I find that the learned ADJ has correctly appreciated the evidence which was not done by the SDM. So, the order of the learned ADJ needs no interference. 5. But this controversy will not end here thus. The controversy is that at the public place, the petitioners are having their Khokhas and according to non petitioners Roshan and Mahaveer, the existence of these Khokhas has created a nuisance over there. The land where the said Khokhas have been dumped belongs to the Panchayat Samiti this is an open chowk, a public place. Under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, the Panchayat has the power to allot a land to anybody which belongs to the Panchayat. The petitioners have moved the Panehayat for granting the land to them. Panchayat Samiti is the appellate authority, and if anybody feels aggrieved by the order of the Panchayat Samiti, then the Collector has the revisional power. So, the question is whether the land is to be given on Patta to the petitioners or not this is a matter which is pending in revision before the Collector. 6. Mr. R.P. Goyal brought to my notice that the petitioners having not applied for allotment of land to the Village Panchayat, the Village Panchayat on 30th Aug., 84 passed an order for demolition of the Khokhas. Against that order, the petitioners appealed to the Panchayat Samiti, where the latter passed the order that Patta should be granted to them. Against the order, of the Panchayat Samiti dated 3rd March, 86, a revision lias been filed before the Collector. Against that order, the petitioners appealed to the Panchayat Samiti, where the latter passed the order that Patta should be granted to them. Against the order, of the Panchayat Samiti dated 3rd March, 86, a revision lias been filed before the Collector. So, the question whether land is to be allotted to the petitioners or not, would be finally decided at the time of decision of the revision petition by the Collector if the revision is dismissed and the order of the Panchayat Samiti is upheld by the Collector, then the petitioners shall have the Patta in their names as regards the land over which their Khokhashave been dumped by them; and in case, the revision is accepted, the order of the Panchayat Samiti dated 3rd March, 86 would be set aside, and no Patta would be given to the petitioners, indirectly, the order of the Village Panchayat regarding demolishing the Khokhas, will stand. So, the whole controversy would come to an end after the decision of the Collector in the revision. Therefore, in the interest of justice, that such a matter should be disposed of expeditiously, I feel to give a direction to the Collector, Alwar, to decide the revision petition as early as possible. As stated by Mr. Goyal, the said revision is fixed for arguments before the Collector, on 28th Feb., 87. 7. I, therefore, direct the Collector, Alwar, to dispose of the revision pending before him on the date fixed, and in case, he is not in a position to do, so then, the same should be disposed of by the end of March, 1987. 8. In the interest of justice, here, I feel to pass order that till the pendency of the revision petition before the Collector, Alwar, the status quo be maintained. 9. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 10. A copy of this order be also sent to the Collector, Alwar.Order accordingly. *******