ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner herein with the following prayers:- “(a) the respondents may kindly be directed to cancel the patta No.29 dated 14.2.1981 because no patta has been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Santput in respect of the land of Khasra No.926. The patta No.926 has been prepared by conspiracy with the respondents. (b) after cancellation of patta no.29 dated 14.2.1981, the respondents may kindly be directed to cancel all the sale deeds including the sale deeds made by Chhogaram to Bhagaram and Sitabai and then to Sanjay and Parwati and administrative sanctions made on the basis of said Patta No.29 dated 14.2.1981 be declared as void abinitio. (c) the application submitted by Sanjay son of Rawataji Mali and Smt. Parwati wife of Sanjay Mali for conversion of commercial use of land after construction of Hotel illegally may kindly be directed the respondents to reject. (d) the criminal action may kindly be taken against Chhogaram, Sarpanch, Secretary Panchayat Samiti, Abu Road and Enquiry Officer for preparing fraudulent patta. (e) the respondents may kindly be directed to remove the illegal construction made over this plot in question of Khasra No.926 and then the possession of the said plot in question may kindly be given to the Gram Panchayat, Santpur.” 2. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention here that the petitioner is a habitual litigant who has been indulged in filing multiple writ petitions styling them to be Public Interest Litigations. D.B. Civil Writ petition No.19728/2022 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2023 observing that the petitioner had tried to espouse purely a private dispute by projecting it to be a matter of public interest. 3. Learned counsel Shri Rajesh Shah representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the instant writ petition involves issues of earnest public interest and has been filed by the petitioner with bonafide objective. He contended that the private respondents Nos.8 and 9 fraudulently procured plot No.926 located in the Gram Panchayat, Santpur because the seller Shri Chhogaram had himself, managed to procure a forged patta of the said plot. He contended that the private respondents Nos.8 and 9 fraudulently procured plot No.926 located in the Gram Panchayat, Santpur because the seller Shri Chhogaram had himself, managed to procure a forged patta of the said plot. He urged that enquiries on this allegation were conducted by the Revenue Department and the Panchayat officials and it has been affirmed that the patta, allegedly issued in the name of Chhogaram for the above plot, is fabricated. He submitted that as the patta itself is fabricated, the consequential sale deed and grant of permission for commercial construction are invalid on the face of record. The construction made on the plot in question, tantamounts to encroachment over government land and hence, a direction be issued to the respondents to demolish the building constructed on government land of prohibited category procured by fraud. 4. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the private respondents Nos.8 and 9 wherein, it is asserted that the patta in question is not forged. The Panchayat was maintaining two separate patta registers and that is why, this discrepancy occurred. It has further been submitted that the respondents herein acquired clear title over the plot in question through a registered sale deed executed by patta holder Chhogaram way back in the year 1981. The petitioner is having full knowledge about the patta having been issued almost forty years ago but, he did not take any steps for challenging the same as per law. It has further been submitted that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint in relation to the alleged fraud/fabrication in issuance of the patta in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road. The said complaint was forwarded to the police for enquiry under Section 155 Cr.P.C. The I.O. conducted thorough inquiry and came to a conclusion that the petitioner is of a criminal nature and is frequently involved in lodging false and fabricated cases. FIR No.131/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 417 and 468 IPC was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station Abu Road City, District Sirohi and petitioner was arrested therein. Ultimately, the complaint filed by the petitioner was found to be based on false allegations and this conclusion was submitted in the court concerned. FIR No.131/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 417 and 468 IPC was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station Abu Road City, District Sirohi and petitioner was arrested therein. Ultimately, the complaint filed by the petitioner was found to be based on false allegations and this conclusion was submitted in the court concerned. An objection has been raised that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the factum of filing the said complaint and the negative conclusion arrived at by the I.O. and thus, the writ petition suffers from the vice of concealment of material facts and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Averment is further made that the petitioner was found indulged in making an attempt of extortion/blackmailing in relation whereto, the aforesaid FIR No.131/2018 came to be registered against the petitioner who was arrested and thereafter released on bail by the competent court. Various other criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner over a period between 1985-2001 and are referred in the reply of the private respondents. 5. Reply on behalf of the State Government (Respondent No.1)has been filed wherein, it has been averred that the enquiry in relation to the issuance of patta was initiated and is pending finalization. Regarding the alleged encroachment, it is stated in the reply of the State Authorities that this incident has been intimated to the Nagar Palika, Abu Road and the UIT, Abu Road for the reason that the land in question is within the municipal limits of Abu Road. 6. The respondent Gram Panchayat has refuted the submissions of the petitioner and a preliminary objection has been raised regarding the availability of remedy under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1996 to the petitioner for challenging the legality and validity of the patta, if so desired. 7. Upon a consideration of the entirety of the material available on record, we find that the petitioner is a retired Teacher from the Department of Education and is a habitual litigant and indulges in filing multiple writ petitions branding them to be Public Interest Litigation. 8. 7. Upon a consideration of the entirety of the material available on record, we find that the petitioner is a retired Teacher from the Department of Education and is a habitual litigant and indulges in filing multiple writ petitions branding them to be Public Interest Litigation. 8. It may be stated here that the matter was taken up by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.01.2023 and on that day, learned counsel representing the petitioner, argued the matter at great length and then, sought time to complete his instructions with respect to the withdrawal of the writ petition so that remedy of revision under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act could be availed. However, today when the matter was called out, learned counsel representing the petitioner conveyed to the Court that he does not have instructions to withdraw the writ petition and would rather argue the same on merits. 9. Recently, this Court considered Writ No.19728/2022 filed by the petitioner and dismissed the same finding that it was for espousing purely a private dispute. In the present case, the grievance which has been raised by the petitioner is against a patta issued in the year 1981, a sale deed executed in the year 2003 and a construction permission granted in the year 2013. Statutory remedies against such actions are available and can be resorted to, if so desired. However, without availing any of these remedies, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court by styling the same to be a Public Interest Litigation. It is expedient to mention here that in relation to the very same land, the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road and on enquiry being conducted, the allegations levelled by the petitioners were found to be false. The petitioner has intentionally and deliberately concealed the factum of filing of the said complaint and thus, the writ petition suffers from intentional concealment of material facts. Alongwith the reply of the private respondents, copy of the charge-sheet dated 13.10.2018 filed against the petitioner after investigation of FIR No.131/2018, Police Station Abu Road is annexed wherein, the allegation is levelled that the petitioner tried to extort money from the complainant of the said case namely Mohd. Alongwith the reply of the private respondents, copy of the charge-sheet dated 13.10.2018 filed against the petitioner after investigation of FIR No.131/2018, Police Station Abu Road is annexed wherein, the allegation is levelled that the petitioner tried to extort money from the complainant of the said case namely Mohd. Raees by threatening him that if he did not pay additional sum of Rs.30,00,000/-for the plot sold by the petitioner, then he would file a case of forgery and send the complainant behind bars. 10. In this background, it is clear as daylight that the petitioner has misused the process of law by filing this writ petition branding it to be a PIL. Whereas, no public interest is involved in the matter. 11. Needless to say that remedy to get a duly issued and registered patta cancelled is provided under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act. Furthermore, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised so as to quash the registered sale deed. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the writ petition herein has been filed for oblique motives in order to wreak vengeance and by intending concealment of material facts. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not be permitted to file any writ petition branding the same to be a Public Interest Litigation unless he deposits the amount of cost within next 30 days. Cost upon being deposited shall be appropriated in the funds of Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.