JUDGMENT 1. - Instant one is a case depicting gross abuse of process of law. The petitioner after availing to get any relief from the civil courts approached a quasi-judicial forum and on getting failed thereto this petition for writ is preferred. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to present petition is that the petitioner at first instance preferred a civil suit before the Munsif, Balotra in the year 1999, wherein on 15.2.1999 a direction was given to him to place on record of suit the original sale deed of land in dispute. At the same time an application seeking temporary injunction was also rejected. An appeal preferred against the order rejecting temporary injunction too was rejected. 3. In pursuant to the order dated 15.2.1999 no original sale deed was produced by the plaintiff petitioner, however, she filed an another suit before the court of Civil Judge (JD) Balotra (Original Suit No.4/2001) claiming rights on disputed land on basis of her old possession. 4. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition as per provisions of Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1959") with an assertion that the land in dispute was purchased by her in the year 1994, as such that could have not been sold to respondent No.4 Shri Chhagan Lal. It is pertinent to note in the revision petition and also in this petition for writ the fact regarding filing of second suit i.e. 4/2001 is not disclosed. 5. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 5.10.2005. Learned Commissioner held that respondent Chhagan Lal purchased agricultural land from khatedar and then surrendered the same as per Section 90(B) of the Land Revenue Act, 1954 for conversion as urban land and for grant of lease. The land then was converted and lease was granted. The revisional court found itself unable to cancel the lease already executed, that being within the authority of a civil court only. 6. While challenging the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the powers under Section 300 of the Act of 1959 are quite wide and the revisional authority could have examined not only the resolution of the local body but could have also set aside the sale deed which is consequential to an illegal act. 7. I have considered all the facts available on record and also the argument advanced. 8. From the facts available, it is apparent that the petitioner is claiming her rights on the land in dispute by placing different facts in different set of litigations. From perusal of site maps available on record it is quite apparent that even identification of the land at different forums is different. Counsel for the petitioner utterly failed to satisfy as to why no reference of the suit No.4/2001 is given by the petitioner before the revisional authority as well as before this Court, specially in the circumstances when the reference of the suit filed in the year 1999 has been given. Counsel for the petitioner also failed to satisfy the Court as to why the original sale deed was not produced by the petitioner before the civil court in pursuant to the order dated 15.2.1999. 9. Be that as it may, the revisional authority has not erred by holding that a sale deed could have been set aside only by a civil court and not by it while exercising powers under Section 300 of the Act of 1959. The Additional Divisional Commissioner while rejecting the revision petition left it open for the petitioner to get the sale deed set aside if i.e. not in accordance with law by getting an appropriate decree from the civil court. 10. For the reasons referred above, no interference of this Court is required with the order impugned. Accordingly, the petition for writ is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 750/-.Writ petition dismissed. *******