Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1492 (RAJ)

Kanti Devi v. The Addl. Collector

2003-11-05

GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner-Smt. Kanti Devi has challenged the order of the Additional Collector (I), Jaipur dated 7.12.2001 by which the revision filed by the petitioner against issuance of a Patta (lease deed) in favour of respondent No.3 has been rejected. The petitioner's sole grievance before the Additional Collector was that the Patta could not have been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bassi District Jaipur in favour of respondent No.3 since a portion of the building being a 'Haveli' had been mortgaged to the petitioner by one Suraj Mal s/o Bheru Lal. Thus, the petitioner in sum & substance contended that a room in this Haveli which was mortgaged to the petitioner by Surajmal s/o Bheru Lal was the property of the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat Bassi had no legal right to execute a Patta in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner filed a revision against the allotment of this Patta before the Additional Collector (I), Jaipur, who after examining the contesting case of the parties, was pleased to hold that 50 sq.ft. area which is claimed by the petitioner as a part of the Haveli infact is not in occupation of the petitioner, but the same was in actual physical possession of respondent No.3 and the same was acquired by respondent No.3 through their predecessor and therefore, the Gram Panchayat thought it proper to regularise this plot in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner however, asserts her possession on the disputed land. 2. It is thus obvious that the petitioner ultimately is asserting her actual physical possession on the land in question as also ownership of this plot by virtue of the mortgage-deed and has challenged the authority of the Gram Panchayat, Bassi to issue a Patta in favour of respondent No. 3 in regard to this land. But it is well settled that a writ petition where no legal question is involved cannot be entertained merely for adjudication of questions of fact. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved of the order of the Additional Collector by which issuance of Patta in favour of respondent No.3 has been upheld it will have to be challenged in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved of the order of the Additional Collector by which issuance of Patta in favour of respondent No.3 has been upheld it will have to be challenged in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector as alto by the Gram Panchayat Basssi are orders which have been passed by a quasi judicial authority and cannot be held to be having the force of a contested decree passed by a Civil Court. Hence, if the petitioner is aggrieved of these orders, she will have to file a civil suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction where she will have to discharge the burden that the land belongs to her and the Gram Panchayat had no right and title to execute a Patta in favour of respondent No.3 after adducing adequate oral and documentary evidence and until a decree is passed in favour of the petitioner, the order of the Additional Collector as also the Gram Panchayat,.Bassi cannot be interfered with. Hence this writ petition stands dismiss.Petition dismissed. *******