JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 17.5.1999 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. 3. The appellants are all descendants of one Taga Ram and appellants No. 1 and 2 Pratapa Ram and Jhhala are his sons. Appellants No. 3/1 and 3/2 are the sons of late Momta Ram S/o. Taga Ram, who is brother of Pratapa Ram and Jhhala Ram. 4. The petition was filed by the appellants challenging the order passed by the District Collector, Jalore on 22.3.1999 (Annex.7). 5. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants were holding the land in-question under two pattas; one patta was granted by the Tehslldar, Jalore in favour of appellants No. 1 and 2 and the second patta was granted in favour of appellant No. 3 late Shri Momata Ram both on 8.6.1973 on the basis of their old possession. 6. While the patta of the land issued in favour of Pratapa Ram and Jhhala Ram measuring 1000 Sq. Yards formed part of khsara No. 238, the patta issued in favour of Momata Ram measured 673 Sq. Yards in Khsara No. 239. The pattas have been granted on the basis of old possession. The grant of 'sanad' in favour of the appellants was not in challenge by anyone anywhere. 7. Pratapa Ram moved an application seeking permission to construct a house over the land in question on behalf of all three brothers and also sought permission to open two doors on the sides abutting on the main road. The plot covered by the patta in favour of Momata Ram opened on the road towards South. The land covered by the patta in favour by appellants No. 1 and 2 was adjoining to the main road towards North. 8. The Gram Panchayat issued permission for construction of houses on the lands covered by the respective patta holders with a special stipulation that the parties shall not construct over any private land and will not make any illegal encroachment over the Government land. 8. The Gram Panchayat issued permission for construction of houses on the lands covered by the respective patta holders with a special stipulation that the parties shall not construct over any private land and will not make any illegal encroachment over the Government land. There is no dispute about writing of permission to open two doors on the side abutting on the road to the holders of the two pattas, namely, in the case of land of Momata Ram, permission was granted to open two doors towards the South whereas in the case of Pratapa Ram and Jhhala permission was granted to open two doors towards North. The dispute is about the writing in the sanction. It was alleged by the complainant-Bhurji who, has moved the Collector by way of a revision against two sanctions that these permissions for opening two doors have been manipulated later on. The revision-petitioner Bhurji has alleged that vague permission for construction has been granted, about which he has come to know through reliable source. He claims to be the holder of the land towards the North of the land held by Pratapa Ram and Jhhala Ram across the road. He has alleged in ht5 application that towards the North of the plot, residential premises of the complainant is situated so there existed a way which was 20x25 feet wide but the applicants are constructing on the excess land than covered under their patta and in their possession and are narrowing public road and are opening doors thereon. Therefore, the same is illegal. He also alleged that he has moved an application for staying the said construction before the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sayala, however, he has not accepted that application and, therefore, he is filing the revision. 9. The present petitioners filed a reply alleging that they are constructing over their own patta-sud land and have not encroached upon any land in excess thereof. It was alleged that on the contrary the complainant has encroached on the road and wants to grab the same and it is only in order to harass the petitioner, because of his earlier animosity that he has lodged this complaint. 10. It was alleged that on the contrary the complainant has encroached on the road and wants to grab the same and it is only in order to harass the petitioner, because of his earlier animosity that he has lodged this complaint. 10. The learned Collector, Jalore referred to the respective objections and passed an order recording ipsi dixit of complaint as his own finding without even adverting to the basic issue raised in the complaint as to whether the person in whose favour permission was granted by the Gram Panchayat is actually raising construction over and above the land, which was in his possession under the patta. Even in revision no question was raised about validity of the patta. It was a matter which required only physical verification at site and could not have been decided merely on the basis of record, which speak nothing about the position at site. 11. As noticed by us, the petitioner has applied for construction over the land which was held by them and not beyond it. They have asked for permission to open doors abutting on the road on either side and nothing more than that. If the holder of the plot had a right to construction over his/her land, then it goes without saying that he had a right to access to their constructions from the public way. The existence of public way on South side of Mamota's land or North side of Pratapa Ram and Jhhala land is also not. in dispute. 12. Without adverting to the basic aspect of the matter and without having a physical verification about the excess land beyond the land held by the present petitioners, being subject to construction over and above the land held by the appellants under their patta. 13. The Collector has not only recorded a finding on ipsi dixit reasons given by the complainant but also went on the record that merely on the basis of the assertion made by complainant that the record of the Panchayat had been prepared ante-dated, has ordered for criminal prosecution of the Sarpanch and Gram Sewak. 14. It appears to be strange way of dealing with the matter and issue raised before the Collector while dealing with a complaint against whom allegation of encroaching upon the land was made in reply. Existence of road 5 between the complainant and the applicant's house is not in dispute. 14. It appears to be strange way of dealing with the matter and issue raised before the Collector while dealing with a complaint against whom allegation of encroaching upon the land was made in reply. Existence of road 5 between the complainant and the applicant's house is not in dispute. When rival claim about the encroachment made on the road by the disputant parties was raised before the Collector, it is incomprehensible that either of the case should have been rejected or accepted without collecting evidence merely on the basis of abstract record, without verification of the existing situation on site and without verification whether construction was actually being raised on the patta-sud land of petitioner or beyond it. Undue importance was given to the alleged manipulation in the sanction about permission to open door. The site plan which was annexed with the application and which has been placed for our perusal by the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat and with 'Nazri Naksha' which has also been placed by the petitioner alongwith his petition goes to show that the purpose of opening door was only to get approach to the house from the road. Except to open doors, there is no other approach to the public road for either plot holders. It is highly doubtful whether for the purpose of reaching public road, opening of door require any sanction. Law is trite, everybody has a right to pass and re-pass on a public way and also that person has a right to approach the road from his own house, for which opening has to be provided whether it is open plot or a constructed building. 15. Without considering all these aspects and acting on contentions of the complainant treating it to be gospel truth, the Collector has not only cancelled the sanction for construction but has found the documents to be manipulated and record of Panchayat to have been ante-dated after preparing and ordered for the prosecution of the Gram Sewak and Sarpanch. It may be noticed that on the objection of the petitioner, when no revision against sanction lay but appeal lies before Panchayat Samiti was accepted by the Collector as well as the learned Single Judge, yet the same has been ignored on a bald complaint that he has approached Vikas Adhikari but he has returned the representation. It may be noticed that on the objection of the petitioner, when no revision against sanction lay but appeal lies before Panchayat Samiti was accepted by the Collector as well as the learned Single Judge, yet the same has been ignored on a bald complaint that he has approached Vikas Adhikari but he has returned the representation. No proof of such attempt by the complainant has been produced. 16. We may notice that the writ petition was dismissed without issuing notice. In appeal instead of service, no return has been filed either by the State or by the complainant. In these circumstances, there is no material on record even to accept prima facie that any such representation was made before the Panchayat Samiti, was ever presented and it has refused to accept for consideration. 17. The learned Single Judge has relied on the doctrine that where substantial justice has been done it may not be interfered with even if it be by an authority without jurisdiction. However, the essential condition of extending such approach is that the material on which an authority has passed an order must be undisputed or indisputable. It has been established from the record that facts are disputed and could have been established only by leading evidence, the doctrine of sustaining substantial justice even by an unauthorised person do not extend, particularly, to the case like the present. 18. As we have noticed above, certain facts which are not disputed and the disputed facts have not been enquired into by the Collector that goes to show that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners affecting their rights in a very casual manner by the Collector as a quasi-judicial, authority which has resulted in failure of justice. 19. Moreover, direction by the learned Single Judge to prosecute the concerned authorities was hardly justified in the facts of the present case that too without issuing notice to the respondents, who were not parties before it. Thus, the directions cannot be allowed to stand. 20. We may notice that the learned Single judge has assumed that petitioners were seeking regularisation of land and regularisation of land in their favour, therefore, has been quashed by the Collector. In other words, the learned Single Judge has proceeded with assumption that the petitioners were seeking to grab land by way of regularisation. This assumption was wholly unfounded. 20. We may notice that the learned Single judge has assumed that petitioners were seeking regularisation of land and regularisation of land in their favour, therefore, has been quashed by the Collector. In other words, the learned Single Judge has proceeded with assumption that the petitioners were seeking to grab land by way of regularisation. This assumption was wholly unfounded. We have noticed that two pattas issued in favour of three brothers were issued in favour of present petitioners way back in 1973. Validity of which was never in dispute anywhere. The grievance of the complainant was that the petitioners were encroaching over the land beyond the land held by them. No prayer was made, nor any finding was recorded by the Collector about validity of title of the land held by the petitioners under the two pattas, yet the learned Single Judge on erroneous assumption about fact that regularisation of land in favour of petitioners was also cancelled has confined that order. This has resulted in rendering the judgment under appeal erroneous. In these circumstances, the order under appeal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 21. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned: order of the Collector is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******