Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 24.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed taking into consideration that the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into and the appellant-writ petitioner has other remedy under the law. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously and vehemently urged before us that the learned Single Judge fell in serious error of law in holding that the appellant has remedy of approaching civil/revenue court for redressal of her grievances. It is submitted that since the appellant’s khataderi land is situated in a Gramdani Village, provisions of the Rajasthan Gramdan Act , 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1971’) are applicable and, therefore, no dispute can be raised by the appellant before any civil/revenue court. 3. Second submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that as a notice has been issued to the appellant on 25.08.2024 by the Chairman, Gram Sabha, Gramdani Village, the appellant has no remedy except to approach this Court, as the notice proceeds on incorrect factual premise that the disputed land is charagah land whereas the records clearly show that the land in dispute is khatederi land of the appellant. 4. Through the writ petitioner-the appellant has clubbed two different and distinct causes of action. One proceeds on the factual statement that agreement dated 15.12.2023, which is being made basis to create a cloud on the title of the appellant, is a forged document. Whether the document is forged or not cannot be gone into by the writ court in the writ petition. The appellant has not even stated as to who has forged the document, who is interferring with the appellant’s possession and who is raising construction on her land. All, stated, is by unknown persons. If the appellant’s grievance is that the someone has encroached upon her land on the basis of agreement, which according to the appellant is forged, appellant’s remedy lies elsewhere and not the writ court. 5. Further grievance ventilated through the writ petition as also this appeal is that notice has been issued to the appellant on 25.08.2024 by the Chairman of the Gram Sabha, requiring her to stop the construction over the disputed land on the allegation that the appellant is raising construction over a land which according to them is a pasture land. 5. Further grievance ventilated through the writ petition as also this appeal is that notice has been issued to the appellant on 25.08.2024 by the Chairman of the Gram Sabha, requiring her to stop the construction over the disputed land on the allegation that the appellant is raising construction over a land which according to them is a pasture land. If the appellant is aggrieved by this letter, she has to submit her reply or she may take appropriate remedy for redressal of her grievance. 6. Provisions of the Act of 1971 have no application in the case of the appellant for the reason that the land of the appellant, even according to the appellant, is a khatedari land. There is no whisper in the pleadings or any material on record to show that the land in dispute, which has been granted to the appellant, vested in Gram Sabha by virtue of declaration made under the provisions of the Act of 1971 or that it was a donated land, which was later on allotted to the appellant. In fact, appellant’s claim that the disputed land is a khatedari land and belong to her ancestors, goes against a plea that the management of the land is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1971. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Section 40 of the Act of 1971 which provides for restriction on sale of lands held by Gram Sabha or Gramdan Kisan. This provision, on the face of it, has no application in respect of the land of khatedari which is claimed as part of ancestral property. The provision applies only to those lands which are regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1971 and not on every land situated in the village. 7. Bar of jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Act of 1971 will have application only in those cases where the land is one which is covered by the declaration under the Act of 1971 or part of donation. Again, this is not the case of the appellant and on the contrary, she claims to be having khatedari rights based on her ancestral property. Therefore, remedy of the appellant to approach civil/revenue court is not barred. 8. Again, this is not the case of the appellant and on the contrary, she claims to be having khatedari rights based on her ancestral property. Therefore, remedy of the appellant to approach civil/revenue court is not barred. 8. Therefore, in addition to the reasons which have been assigned by the learned Single Judge as also for the reasons additionally stated by us, the writ petition was not maintainable. 9. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.