JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against issuance of notice Annex.-1 by the Gram Panchayat purportedly under Rule 165(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 2. It is, inter-alia, contended in the petition that the petitioner has raised construction on this patta sud land and the notice issued by the respondents is only on account of personal vendetta on part of the persons of the panchayat samiti and a look at the notice clearly indicates that the Gram Panchayat has issued the notice with a pre-determined notion alleging the petitioner to have trespassed on a public land, which is factually incorrect. It is claimed that the petitioner is in possession of the land as per his patta, wherein his shop was existing since issuance of patta in the year 1988 and the petitioner is undertaking the reconstruction of the shop on the same site, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has trespassed on public land. 3. The respondents have appeared on caveat. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable for more than one reason. The petition has been filed against a show cause notice without even responding to the notice; the action of the respondents is open to appeal under Section 61 and/or revision under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act') and the petitioner in view of the availability of alternative remedy is not entitled to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court; the respondents have undertaken the procedure as required under Rule 165 of the Rules and only after prima facie coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has trespassed on the public land that the notice has been issued. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. A bare look at Annexure-1 filed by the petitioner reveals that the notice has been issued with the allegations that the petitioner has trespassed on public land outside petitioner's shop.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. A bare look at Annexure-1 filed by the petitioner reveals that the notice has been issued with the allegations that the petitioner has trespassed on public land outside petitioner's shop. It is further indicated that the permission applied by the petitioner could not be granted as there was difference between the land indicated in the patta and the permission sought and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to remove the construction, failing which, it was indicated that the same may be removed by the respondents. 7. The respondents have in the submissions claimed the said Annex.-1 as notice to the petitioner, though Annex.-1 indicates the same to be a final notice, however, it does not indicate as to whether any response is required on behalf of the petitioner and/or whether the issue alleged would be determined before any action is taken by the respondents. 8. However, in view of the fact that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents pertains to the boundaries of the construction being raised by the petitioner in contradistinction to the boundaries of patta (Annex.-2) issued to the petitioner, the said aspect cannot be determined in the writ jurisdiction and the petitioner is required to take appropriate proceedings for the said purpose. 9. However, as the respondents have claimed that the communication Annex.-1 is a show cause notice, the petitioner may now file a reply to the said show cause notice, where after the respondents would determine the plea raised by the petitioner and thereafter take action on the said notice. 10. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, disposed of.