JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, submits that Gram Panchayat Makoda, Panchayat Samiti Buhana, District Jhunjhunu sold a plot ad measuring 696 sq. yard in 1971 to one Prahlad Singh and patta was also issued to him by the said Gram Panchayat. The said auction was not put to any challenge for a period of about 23 years, when a revision petition was filed which however was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.1994 by the District Collector, Jhunjhunu. Counsel submits that subsequently, the order dtaed 07.02.1994 was challenged in SBCWP No.2102/1994 which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 22.09.1997. Counsel submits that in the said order, this Court was pleased to state that the issue of ownership of the land be decided by a competent revenue court within 6 months from the date of submission of the copy of this order dated 22.09.1997 and directed that if the Revenue Court were to hold that the ownership of the land in issue was with the Gram Panchyat at relevant time, the action of the Gram Panchayat and auction of the land to Prahlad Singh would be final, otherwise the ownership would be that of the person found entitled by the revenue court. Counsel further submits that in spite of the order dated 22.09.1997 which effectively set out a limit of six months for the revenue court to adjudicate the dispute, no proceedings were taken by the respondent No.5, Durga Prasad Yadav. It is submitted that consequently, in the year 1998, the petitioner, Dharam Singh purchased the land in issue from Prahlad Singh. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently sometime in 2002, the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed from the land in issue whereupon he filed a civil suit No.4/2002 before the District Judge, Khetri seeking declaration and permanent injunction protecting his title and possession. Counsel has pointed out that thereafter belatedly in the year 2003, one Bhikha Ram (herein respondent No.4) laid a suit for declaration of his ownership of the land in dispute before the revenue court wherein the petitioner, Dharma Singh was impleased as a party. Counsel submits that it is at this stage that Durga Prasad, respondent No.5, claimed his ownership of the land auctioned to Prahlad Singh in the year 1971 by the Gram Panchayat Buhana. Counsel submits that it is at this stage that Durga Prasad, respondent No.5, claimed his ownership of the land auctioned to Prahlad Singh in the year 1971 by the Gram Panchayat Buhana. Counsel submits that in the year 2006 to the petitioner's misfortune one Harpal Singh became Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, who had political rivalry with the petitioner and thereupon at the instance of Hapral, the Panchayat Samiti, Buhana exceeded its jurisdiction and passed a resolution dated 31.07.2006 recording that the land auctioned in 1971 to Prahlad Singh was wrongly auctioned. Consequent to the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, an order dated 03.08.2006 came to be passed by the Panchayat Samiti purportedly cancelling the allotment of Patta in 1972 to Prahlad Singh to the petitioner's detriment as his successor in interest. Counsel submits that a revision petition, filed against the resolution dated 31.07.2006 and the subsequent order dated 03.08.2006, has been dismissed by the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu on 21.02.2011. It is submitted that in the facts of the case, issue of jurisdiction, latches and malafides arise for the consideration of this Court. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been dispossessed from the land in dispute on the basis of revenue entries standing in the name of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and possession given to the respondents Durga Prasad Yadav and Bhikha Ram. It is submitted that this Court ought not to interfere with the resolution passed by Panchayat Samiti on 31.07.2006 and the consequent order dated 03.08.2006 as also the order of affirmation dated 21.02.2011, passed by the Additional District Collector. Counsel for the respondents submits that the in view of the pending writ and revenue suit, the writ petition should be disposed of with the direction that the dispute between the parties as to ownership of the land in dispute be determined in the suit for declaration filed by Bhika Ram before the Court of SDO, Khetri and or the decision of the District Judge, Khetri in civil suit No.4/2002 filed for declaration and injunction by the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the petitioner agrees with the suggestion. 6. 5. Counsel for the petitioner agrees with the suggestion. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as also the facts of the case, I would deem it fit and proper to dispose of this writ petition with the observations that the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti, Buhana and the order passed based thereon on 03.08.2006 cancelling the patta as also the order of the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu dated 21.02.2011 upholding the same in the revision proceedings under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 would be of no consequence either on finding of facts and or law therein for the determination of the title of the contesting parties both in Revenue Suit No.11/2003, before the SDO, Khetri and in Civil Suit No.04/2002 before the District Judge, Khetri. It is expected of the courts below to dispose of this long festering dispute within a period of six months from the receipt of certified copy of this Court.The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.Stay application also stands disposed of.Petition Disposed of. *******