JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3055/2023: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or directions:- (i) to quash and set aside the order dated 03.01.2023 (Annex.-8) passed by CJ&JM, Jayal passed in application Order 39 Rule 1 & 2. (ii) to quash and set aside order dated 16.01.2023 (Annex.-9) passed by ADJ No.1, Nagaur in Appeal No.01/23. (iii) Petitioners may kindly be permitted to construct the community hall as they are rightful and legal owner of land belonging to the Patta No.25/50 issued by Bugarada Gram Panchayat. (iv) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice; and (v) cost of litigation may kindly be ordered to be awarded in favour of petitioners.” S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3037/2023: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) The impugned administrative sanction dated 23.03.2022 (Ann.5), technical sanction dated 28.03.2022 (Ann.6) and financial sanction dated 12.04.2022 (Ann.7) may kindly be declared arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondent Gram Panchayat may kindly be restrained from raising construction over the land of the petitioners in pursuance of the administrative sanction dated 23.03.2022 (Ann.5), technical sanction dated 28.03.2022 (Ann.6) and financial sanction dated 12.04.2022 (Ann.7). (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 2. In Writ petition No. 3055/2023, the respondents instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of the patta; alongwith therewith an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC against the petitioners was also filed, before the learned Civil Judge, Jayal, District Nagaur, stating therein that Patta No.10 Misal No.9/62 dated 09.01.1962 was issued to Late Tulcha Ram (great Grandfather of the respondent no.1). 2.1. 2.1. It was further stated in the said suit that another patta no.25/50, as claimed to have been issued in favour of one Mahinudeen S/o Abdul Gani Lohar on 01.01.1969 by the Gram Panchayat, Bugarada Block, Jayal, District Nagaur, pertains to the same land in relation to which the aforementioned Patta No.10 was issued; it was thus stated in the suit that in the given factual matrix, the subsequent Patta No.25/50 so claimed to have been issued is a forged and fabricated document. It was also stated in the suit, that despite the said patta being a forged and fabricated document, Mahinudeen gifted the land of patta no. 25/50 to the Gram Panchayat for construction of a community hall. 2.2. It was also stated in the suit that the said patta, in fact, was not issued by the said Gram Panchayat, as the same was bearing forged signature of the Sarpanch; the same was done by the petitioners by creating false and fabricated documents; further, no official record was available in relation patta no.25/50 of the land in question. Thus, as per the pleadings of the suit, as a consequence of the patta in question being forged, the gift of the land made by Mahinudeen for construction of the community hall was also illegal. 2.3. The learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and passed the status quo order as it existed on that date regarding construction on the land in question. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC before the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2023. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Mahaveer Bhanwariya appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as per the description of the land in patta no.10 of the respondents, northern side, there exists Land of Shiv Temple, on southern side-Ramdevra, on eastern side – a public way and on the western side - Field of one Magna Ram and Moola Ram. 3.1. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that patta no. 3.1. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that patta no. 25/50 Misal No. 61/1967/86 was issued in favour of Mahinudeen; as per the description therein, on northern side, there existed a chowk and a public way, on southern side -Way to Temple, on eastern side -public way, and on western side -House of one Ramchandra/Prabhudas. As per learned Senior Counsel, both the aforesaid lands are situated separately, and therefore, the respondents pleaded incorrect facts in the suit in question, and thus, the impugned orders passed by the learned Court below were not justified in law. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the description of the land of patta no.10 does not match with the land (of patta No.25/50) where the community hall was to be constructed. Therefore, as per learned Senior Counsel, the learned Courts below have misinterpreted the reply of the petitioners in the suit in question, and thus, committed an error in passing the impugned orders. 3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Gram Panchayat Tangla wrote an application to the concerned authorities for providing the certified copies of the documents pertaining to both the aforementioned land, and the documents clearly show different description and measurement of the said lands, and therefore, the learned Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned orders. 3.4. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the legal heirs of Late Mahinudeen have donated the said land to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat for construction of a community hall by an agreement dated 08.03.2022, and therefore, the petitioners are lawful owners of the land of patta no 25/50. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private-respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the gift deed, as claimed by the petitioners, was not a registered deed, and therefore, on the basis of the said gift deed, the petitioners cannot have any ownership rights over the land in question. 4.1. It was further submitted that the respondents filed an application before the Village Development Officer (VDO) for procuring the certified copy of the patta issued in favour of Mainudeen (patta no.25/50) and the VDO has given an information that no record is available with the gram panchayat regarding the same patta. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the petitioners have no ownership rights over the land in question. 4.2. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the petitioners have no ownership rights over the land in question. 4.2. It was also submitted that the petitioners are not the lawful owners of the land in question because at the time of issuance of the letter of ownership and site map, the petitioner were not having any lease deed and gift deed. It was further submitted that patta was issued in the name of great grandfather of the respondents. 4.3. It was further submitted that the respondent no.1 filed an application before the VDO, Bugarda and Gram Panchayat, Tangla seeking certified copy of the patta and record of the land pertaining to Mahinudeen, but the same was denied. As per learned counsel, the Gram Panchayat, Tangla as well as the VDO have refused to provide copies of the patta and the proceedings on the ground that the respondent no.1 is a third party. 5. In Writ petition No. 3037/2023, the petitioners are patta holders of patta no.10 Misal No.9/62 dated 09.01.1962 (Annexure-1) issued by the Gram Panchayat, Gugarda. The sanction for construction of community hall was granted and the respondent-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Tangla issued the ownership certificate and photographs of the proposed site. Thereafter, the respondent no.3-Chief Executive Officer granted administrative sanction on 23.03.2022 and the Assistant Engineer and Junior Technical Assistant have also granted technical sanction for construction of public community hall on 28.03.2022. Subseqsuently, the respondent no.3-Chief Executive Officer granted financial sanction on 12.04.2022 for construction of the community hall in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Technical Assistant have not even visited the site and did not carry out any inspection, and therefore, the impugned sanction orders are highly illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the community hall in question was sanctioned to be constructed on the land of the petitioners without any valid ownership. It was also submitted that in the aforementioned suit, the learned Court below allowed the temporary injunction in the favour of the petitioners-Kamla and Ram Lal. Therefore, as per learned counsel the impugned sanction orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. On the other hand, Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya; Mr. It was also submitted that in the aforementioned suit, the learned Court below allowed the temporary injunction in the favour of the petitioners-Kamla and Ram Lal. Therefore, as per learned counsel the impugned sanction orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. On the other hand, Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya; Mr. Sunil Beniwal Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the sanction for construction of the community hall was granted out of the MLA Fund and the entire process in question was undertaken in accordance with law. 7.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that prior to passing of the impugned sanction orders, two officers i.e. BDO & ABDO have made due inspection of the site in question, examined the sites and documents relating to the land of patta no 25/50, alongwith due measurement verification. It was also submitted that the land of patta no. 10 belonged to the petitioner; description of the land mentioned therein, did not match with the description of the land, on which the community hall in question is to be constructed. 7.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the construction of the community hall would serve the public purpose, and the same was validly sanctioned to be constructed on the land of patta no.25/50; the construction work is in progress, raw material has already been purchased and basic foundation has also been laid down. Thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the petitioners instituted the aforementioned suit and sought injunction order in their favour, on the basis of false averments. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 9. In Writ Petition No. 3055/2023, this Court observes that the respondents instituted the aforementioned suit along with application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the learned Court below against the petitioners; the said application was allowed vide the impugned order dated 03.01.2023. The petitioner preferred an appeal before learned learned Appellate Court, but the same was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2023. 9.1. This Court further observes that the land of patta no. The petitioner preferred an appeal before learned learned Appellate Court, but the same was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2023. 9.1. This Court further observes that the land of patta no. 25/50, Misal No. 61/1967/86 dated 21.06.1967 was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bugarada in favour of Mahinuddeen S/o Abdul Gani; after his demise, his the legal heirs donated/gifted the said land to the Gram Panchayat, Tagla through an agreement dated 08.03.2022, for construction of the community hall. 9.2. This Court also observes that the description and measurements of both lands in patta no. 10 and patta no. 25/50, respectively, are clearly different and separate from each other. This Court further observes that the land of patta no. 25/50 was donated/gifted through the gift deed to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat for construction of the community hall. 9.3. This Court also observes that both the lands carrying different descriptions, are not even adjacent to each other. The suit was instituted in relation to the land of patta no.10, and that, the land of patta no. 25/50 is different, and therefore, the temporary injunction order cannot operate qua the land of patta no.25/50. 9.4. This Court further observes that as per the material available on record and also the photographs so furnished, it is clear that the aforementioned lands with different patta numbers and descriptions are two different and distinct properties. 10. In Writ Petition no.3037/2023, this Court observes that the sanction was granted for construction of the community hall in question over the land of Patta No. 25/50 Misal No. 61/1967/86 and the Gram Panchayat, Tangla is a lawful owner of the said land, as per the gift deed executed by the legal heirs of Mahinudeen. 10.1. This Court further observes that the financial sanction for construction of the community hall in question was granted out of the MLA Fund, permission for such construction was granted after site inspection being conducted by the concerned officers; the Assistant Engineer and Junior Technical Assistant have also granted the technical sanction for construction of the community hall. 10.2 This Court also observes that the record clearly indicates that the lands of patta no.10 and patta no 25/50 are different and separate lands, and the community hall was sanctioned to be constructed over the land of patta no.25/50. 11. 10.2 This Court also observes that the record clearly indicates that the lands of patta no.10 and patta no 25/50 are different and separate lands, and the community hall was sanctioned to be constructed over the land of patta no.25/50. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3055/2023 is allowed, and accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jayal, Nagaur in Civil Suit No. 30/2022 and the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur in Civil Appeal No.01/2023 are quashed and set aside. 11.1. However, for the foregoing observations and the factual matrix of the case, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3037/2023 is dismissed. 12. All pending applications stand disposed of.