- (1.) DEFECTS are waived.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for appellant on the admission of appeal. Petitioner/appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal challenging the impugned order of the Single Bench dated 19.10.2011, whereby her writ petition against the order of Additional Collector dated 03.08.2011, has been dismissed. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Gram Panchayat, on the recommendations of the Committee, issued a 'Patta' to petitioner as well as respondent No.3 Smt. Karan Kanwar on 03.11.2007 for a land measuring 39X54 Sq. Yds. and 70X50 Sq. Yds. respectively. Petitioner challenged the 'Patta' issued to respondent No.3 before the Additional Collector by way of revision petition on the ground that land allotted to respondent No.3 vide impugned 'Patta', is a part of public way, therefore, the same could not have been allotted. The matter was examined, the Additional Collector recorded a finding that land allotted to respondent No.3 is not a part of public way and consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner was dismissed. The said order has been affirmed by the Single Bench, while dismissing the writ petition of petitioner. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that land alloted to respondent No.3 has been shown as public way in the 'Patta' issued to petitioner, therefore, the Gram Panchayat and the Additional Collector, both, committed an illegality in issuing 'Patta' to respondent No.3. Single Bench also committed an illegality in affirming their action. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for appellant and examined the impugned order passed by the Single Bench and other documents placed on record.
(3.) THE land allotted to respondent No.3 by the Gram Panchayat vide order/'Patta' dated 03.11.2007 is a part of public way or not, is purely a question of fact. THE Gram Panchayat has issued 'Patta' on the basis of recommendations of the Committee and the same has been affirmed by the Additional Collector also, vide order dated 03.08.2011, mentioning therein that land in dispute is not a part of public way. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in not interferring in the order of Additional Collector and has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by petitioner. The Single Bench has also observed that no procedural irregularity has been pointed out in allotment of land to respondent No.3. In these circumstances, we find that the order passed by the Single Bench is absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for by this Court in this intra Court appeal. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay application also stands dismissed. ;