Judgment N. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued restraining the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 from interfering over petitioners land shown in the Naksha trace (Anx. 5) and not to make allotment to any other person and also prays that not to dispossess the petitioner without due process of law. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that out of Araji Number 777 total measuring 364 bighas and 8 biswas in Roon Rajsamand Patwar Circle Sanwad Tehsil and District Rajsamand, the petitioner has purchased the disputed land measuring 23. 10 bigha from one Kishan Singh and Pan Singh respondents Nos. 5 and 6 respectively in the year 1972 and paying land revenue and has also consumed water of the lake. It is alleged that the proceedings were initiated u/s. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and he was declared trespasser on 25-5-1987 by the Tehsildar. On appeal, the Collector vide judgment dt. 21-12-1990 set aside the order and remanded the matter back with a direction to decide it afresh. After considering the various judgments, the proceedings were dropped by the Tehsildar vide order dt. 9-101991. It is also alleged that Kishan Singh also filed a writ petition bearing No. 1815/87 seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the peaceful use and possession of his land (including the land in dispute) wherein ad interim stay order has been passed. The petitioner has further alleged that in the first week of March, 1993 Naib Tehsildar, Revenue Inspector and Patwari along with 3-4 peons of the Tehsil Rajsamand came on the site and demolished a sizable portion of the boundary wall existing around the land in dispute. On the apprehension that the respondents may cause further injury to the petitioner, he has filed this writ petition aforesaid for relief on 28-7-93, along with the documents Anxs. 1 to 10. ( 3 ) ON 5-8-1993, this Court while admitting the writ petition, ordered to maintain status quo. An application was moved by Anubrat Vishwa Bharati for impleading it as a party respondent No. 8 to the writ petition. The application for impleadment was allowed by this Court on 9-12-1993. Non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 have filed reply to the writ petition on 3-10-94 along with documents Anx. R/1 to R/12. An application was moved by Anubrat Vishwa Bharati for impleading it as a party respondent No. 8 to the writ petition. The application for impleadment was allowed by this Court on 9-12-1993. Non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 have filed reply to the writ petition on 3-10-94 along with documents Anx. R/1 to R/12. Reply to the writ petition has also been filed by the respondent No. 5. Municipal Board, Rajsamand, the non-petitioner No. 7 has filed reply on 8-4-1994. Impleaded respondent i. e. respondent No. 8 also filed reply on 1-2-1994 along with the documents Anxs. R/1 to R/5. In counter to the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 8 the petitioner filed rejoinder and also filed documents Anx. 11. The petitioner also filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 4. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally. ( 4 ) MR. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has purchased the land in dispute in the year 1971 and when earlier the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sec. 91 of the Land Revenue Act have been dropped on 9-10-1991 and that has become final between the petitioner and the State, the petitioner, has a right to remain in possession. He has also submitted that the respondent No. 8 has constructed the building in the year 1991 but no proceedings have been initiated against the respondent No. 8 rather a letter dt. 28-4-92 has been sent by the Collector recommending for regularisation of the land of respondent No. 8. Mr. Gupta has also submitted that after filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed a suit u/sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for possession and declaration against State and others. ( 5 ) MR. Tatia, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not a recorded Khatedar. He has submitted that as per the petitioner the total area of Khasra No. 777 is 364 bighas and 8 biswas and out of this big piece of land, 78 bighas and odd portion of land was in possession of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6. He has submitted that Kishan Singh, the alleged predecessor in title issued a notice Anx. R/4 dt. 5 and 6. He has submitted that Kishan Singh, the alleged predecessor in title issued a notice Anx. R/4 dt. 16-6-87 to the State alleging that on 27-5-87/ 28-5-87, the Tehsildar demolished the kot constructed around the land, whereas the petitioner has alleged that he has purchased the land in dispute in the year 1972. He has also submitted that the petitioner has manipulated and interpolated the agreement to sale dt. 2-7-1985 (Anx. R/2) wherein Khasra Number 777 has not been mentioned as observed by the Tehsildar, Rajsamand and in the another agreement to sale Anx. R/3 of the same date Khasra Number 777 was inserted afterwards. He has further submitted that the fact of execution of agreement to sale was deliberately suppressed by the petitioner. Mr. Tatia has also urged that the petitioners contention that he purchased 23 1/2 bighas of land from respondents Nos. 5 and 6 stands falsified as per Anx. R/2 sale deed dt. 8-7-74 showing that he purchased 3 Bighas of land only which is not related to the alleged petitioners land. He has further submitted that even the location of the land has also not been mentioned. He has further submitted that the petitioners land has no connection with the land of respondent No. 8 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. Mr. Tatia has also urged that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under Secs. 340 and 195, Cr. P. C. and with Ss. 467 and 471, IPC. ( 6 ) MR. Dinesh Maheswari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 has submitted that the petitioner has not mentioned on which land he is claiming his right and where his land is situated. He has submitted that the building of the respondent No. 8 has been constructed in the year 1981, which is situated about 250 ft. above from the land of the petitioner, and the petitioners land has nothing to do with the land of respondent No. 8. He has also submitted that no cause of action accrues to the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. He has lastly submitted that vide letter dt. He has also submitted that no cause of action accrues to the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. He has lastly submitted that vide letter dt. 28-9-92, the Collector has only recommended for regularisation of two bighas of land where the building is situated but the petitioner on the basis of ad interim order of maintaining status quo has got the regularisation matter of the respondent No. 8 stayed. He has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief under Art. 226 as suit is pending and, therefore, no writ petition is maintainable. ( 7 ) MR. R. K. Mehta learned counsel for the Municipal Board, Rajsamand has contended that nothing has been alleged against the Municipal Board and no relief has been claimed against it. He has also contended that the Board has not taken any action against the petitioner u/sec. 203 despite that it has been dragged to fight this litigation, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed with heavy cost. ( 8 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. ( 9 ) AT the very outset it may be stated that the matter involves serious disputed questions of fact which needs thorough investigation and cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. In the instant case there is no satisfactory explanation of the questions raised by the non-petitioners in the shape of preliminary objections about the exact location of the petitioners land and its measurement and title of petitioner. The agreement to sale, photostat copies of which have been produced by the respondent State also creates doubt. The petitioner has also not been able to satisfy prima facie how his land is connected with the land of the respondent No. 8. The petitioner has not placed any satisfactory material to show that how he has come in the possession of the land in dispute. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226. It has been submitted by the counsel for the parties that a suit is pending in the Court of Asstt. Collector, Rajsamand and their rights will be determined in that suit. Therefore, on this count also no interference is called for. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226. It has been submitted by the counsel for the parties that a suit is pending in the Court of Asstt. Collector, Rajsamand and their rights will be determined in that suit. Therefore, on this count also no interference is called for. It may be stated that in this writ petition, the petitioner has not impleaded respondent No. 8 as a party against which he wanted relief and on the other hand he has made the Municipal Board, Rajsamand as a party against which no relief has been sought and has been made party unnecessarily. Under the circumstances, the respondents are entitled to get cost of this litigation. Further if in case the Court below comes to the conclusion that there is any interpolation, the learned Court will be free to take action against the concerned persons according to law. ( 10 ) IN view of what I have discussed above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed with cost, which is estimated as Rs. 1000. 00 each to be paid to the Municipal Board, Rajsamand and the non-petitioner No. 8. Petition dismissed.