JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order of Additional Collector-III, Jaipur dated 21.11.2000. 2. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the application filed by the petitioners for bringing the legal heirs of Ram Sahai Sharma, who has expired on 25.11.2003, on record was filed on 14.9.2004, whereas the formal order has so far not been passed. 3. The aforesaid application is allowed. Shri Lokesh Sharma appears for the legal heirs of respondent nos.3 as well. 4. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the revision petition against the order passed on 4.2.1987 could not have been entertained in the year 2000 and that revision petition against the order dated 21.12.1999 also could not have been entertained because it was merely a consequential order for issuance of the patta. It is argued that the revision petition was barred by limitation and that respondents was merely claiming their right of way, which was their easement right, which dispute could be decided only by civil court and not by the gram panchayat, therefore, the matter could not have been remitted to the gram panchayat. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that allotment was made to the petitioners after making compliance of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. The revision petition was not directly maintainable before the Additional Commissioner because in between there was a remedy before panchayat samiti which was not availed by the respondents. The allegation that the signature of respondent no.3 was forged, could not have been accepted on his mere assertion unless there was proof to that effect. Once objections were invited in 1987, there was no necessity of raising such objection again in 1999. The learned revisional court has erred in law in not appreciating all these aspects. 6. Shri Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the order dated 4.2.1987 was also made on the behest of the respondents and that this order was not acted upon and remained invalid. The process was re-initiated in 1999 for issuance of patta and in fact report was called for by Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Chaksu on application of the respondents dated 16.9.1999 but Gram Panchayat did not comply with that order and rather issued patta in favour of the petitioners. The process was re-initiated in 1999 for issuance of patta and in fact report was called for by Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Chaksu on application of the respondents dated 16.9.1999 but Gram Panchayat did not comply with that order and rather issued patta in favour of the petitioners. The learned revisional court has merely remanded the matter by setting aside the patta and directing gram panchayat to give opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass fresh order. If an opportunity is given to the respondents, they would be able to persuade the Gram Panchayat that the land allotted to the petitioners also covered the way through which the respondents were having access to their land. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the order passed on 4.2.1987 was never acted upon and therefore when in 1999, the process was initiated by gram panchayat for issuance of patta to the petitioners, it should have held fresh proceedings in conformity with the provisions of the Rules. The inspection report of 15.11.1983 was made basis for issuance of patta in 1999. The respondents were claiming that they had a 10 feet wide way through the land in dispute which has wrongly been shown only 3 feet wide. The gram panchayat did not make appropriate enquiry about this and behind the back of the respondents, issued patta. In fact, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that patta in 1999 was issued on the basis of decision taken in 1987 blighting from the fact that petitioners had made another application for issuance of patta in 1995 and on that basis, the matter was processed again. The respondents made a complaint to Development Officer Panchayat Samiti, Chaksu who by order dated 16.9.1999 called for the report from gram panchayat as to why instead of signing such report, gram panchayat issued patta in favour of petitioners. 8. Owing to all these facts, the Additional Collector, in my view has rightly remanded the matter back to the Gram Panchayat by setting aside the patta. I find no legal infirmity in the order impugned. 9. The writ petition is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******