- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any error in the impugned order dated 02.12.2011 as passed in CWP No. 11493/2011 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to exercise the writ jurisdiction on the grievance as suggested and the prayer as made by the petitioner- appellant, essentially for recovery of possession of the land in question.
(2.) THE petitioner-appellant was issued a patta for the land in question by Gram Panchayat, Sindhari on 08.01.1979; but the same was ordered to be cancelled when put to challenge in a revision petition by one Ramaram before the Collector, Barmer. The petitioner-appellant, however, preferred a revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Authority-I, Jodhpur ('the RAA') that was partly allowed on 11.06.1993; and the said patta was ordered to be treated as the one for residential purpose instead for establishing a petrol pump. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the RAA, the Gram Panchayat and the said revisionist Ramaram filed a joint writ petition (CWP No.4125/1993) that was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.04.2002; and the order passed by the RAA was set aside but while leaving it open for the parties to agitate their case in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant preferred an intra-court appeal that was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.08.2005 and, while setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was ordered to be dismissed. It appears that the revisionist Ramaram attempted to question the aforesaid order dated 12.08.2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (No.22954/2005) was dismissed on 21.11.2005. In the backdrop of the above noted facts and the proceedings, the petitioner-appellant made a request before the Additional Collector, Barmer for being delivered the possession of the land in question from Ramaram. The Additional Collector, however, declined to entertain such a request of the petitioner- appellant while leaving it open for him to avail of an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition (CWP No. 11493/2011) that has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.12.2011. The learned Single Judge noticed the indisputable position that the possession of the said revisionist Ramaram was not the subject matter of the previous litigation; and that there had not been any direction in the past proceedings in regard to the question of possession, particularly about handing over of possession to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge, in the circumstances, found no reason to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction. We respectfully concur with what has been observed by the learned Single Judge because the prayer for recovery of possession is directed against a private individual; and the relief as sought entails such an inquiry into the facts that cannot be made in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) IN view of the above, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioner-appellant is free to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law.;