Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Challenge in the present petition is to order (Annexure-8) dated 20.07.1992 passed by the Collector cum District Magistrate, Bhilwara by which a Patta of the land measuring 664 x 166 feet granted to the petitioner was cancelled. 2. It appears from the pleadings made in the petition that the petitioner was granted a Patta of land measuring 664 x 166 feet by Gram Panchayat, Kotdi vide registration bearing No. 20/80 for a sum of Rs. 250/-A revision for giving land on Patta to the petitioner was filed by some inhabitants upon which the impugned order (Annexure-8) was passed. 3. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed by proceeding ex parte against the petitioner. There were adequate and justifiable reasons for non appearance on the concerned date because the petitioner was facing a criminal charge for the very lease of land as a criminal complaint was also made against him. He had applied for anticipatory bail which was allowed to him on 14.07.1992. The petitioner was busy for releasing him on anticipatory bail. He could not appear on the date fixed. Immediately after coming to know that the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner, he moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order (Annexure-8) vide application dated 07.08.1992 (Annexure-9) and the same has not been decided till date. 4. Learned Counsel representing the respondents submits that the present petition is pre-mature as the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte order (Annexure-8), is still pending. He says that if the present petition is dismissed, the concerned Collector cum District Magistrate will decide the application of the petitioner dated 07.08.1992 in accordance with law. 5. In view of the statement made by the Counsel representing the respondents, this writ petition is dismissed with a direction that the Collector-cum District Magistrate, Bhilwara would decide the application of the petitioner dated 07.08.1992 within 15 days of receipt of the certified copy of this order which the Counsel for the respondents would send to him after obtaining the same. If the application aforesaid is decided in favour of the petitioner, it goes without saying that the application of the inhabitants for cancellation of Patta in favour of the petitioner will be determined afresh and in that exercise if the petitioner may lose, it would always be open to him to challenge the order in appropriate forum. It shall also be open for him to challenge the order that may be recorded in the application dated 07.08.1992, if the same may turn against him. 6. Vide interim order dated 01.09.1992, this Court had protected the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner shall continue in possession till the application dated 07.08.1992 is decided.