Judgment:
Sharma, J.
1. Application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased petitioner Chhaju Ram stands allowed and Shri Gulab Chand son of Chhaju Ram and Smt, Gyarsi daughter of Chhaju Ram are substituted as petitioners. Amended cause title has already been filed. I have heard the rival submissions on merit and perused the material on record.
2. Contextual facts depict that the Gram Panchayat Pacheri Kalan Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu (respondent No.2) issued patta of land in dispute in favour of respondent No.3 Net Ram on October 22, 1975. Thereafter on August 20, 1980 the petitioner Chhaju Ram made an application to respondent No.2 with a request to issue patta of land in dispute to him. Sarpanch of respondent No.2 issued general notice on August 25, 1980. Chhaju Ram on August 25,1980 wrote to the Sarpanch that Net Ram forcibly filled the foundations of the land in question therefore action be taken against him. Sangram Singh, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pacheri Kalan on September 4, 1981 issued patta of the land in question in favour of Chhaju Ram. After unsuccessful appeals before the Panchayat Samiti Buhana and Collector Jhunjhunu, Net Ram approached Revenue Appellate Authority (for short the RAA. The RAA vide its judgment dated September 22, 1987 allowed the appeal. This order of the RAA has been called in question in the instant writ of certiorari.
3. It is well settled that the High Court does not act as court of appeal while dealing with a writ of certiorari. The control which is exercised through this writ over judicial or quasi judicial tribunals or bodies is not in an appellate but supervisory capacity. The issuance of writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy. Such a writ may not be issued if substantial justice has been done to the parties or if in the event upon quashing of one illegal order it is found that the same would give rise to another illegality, the High Court in its discretion may quash both the orders.
4. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legal position I proceed to examine the questions raised in the instant writ petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the RAA had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of respondent Net Ram. The Gram Panchayat (respondent No.2) decided to issue patta to the petitioner in view of the Panchayat and Nyay Panchayat General Rules, 1961 (for short the 1961 Rules. The petitioner deposited Rs. 200/- and patta was issued to him on September 4,1981. Net Ram (respondent No.3) placed original patta dated October 22, 1975 before the RAA, whereas the date of issuance of the said patta according to Khasra Register is October 22,1976. Thus the patta had no legal sanctity and it ought to have been declared illegal.
5. Per contra, it is urged on behalf of Net Ram (respondent No.3) that since the land in question was already allotted to him and till the patta was cancelled the landcould not have been allotted to the petitioner, therefore the patta dated September 4,1981 was illegal and invalid. Learned Collector dismissed the appeal preferred by therespondent No.2 on the point of limitation and not on merit. The RAA under thesecircumstances allowed the appeal. The appeal before the RAA was competent in viewof Rule 270 (c) of l961 Rules. '
6. After having heard the rival submissions and on careful scrutiny of record I am of the opinion that the RAA as well as the Collector, both have failed to resolve the controversy on merit. None of the authority had applied its judicial mind into the matter. How two patta could be issued to two different persons in respect of one land? I do not intend to express any opinion into merits and demerits of the case as it would tantamount to dealing the case as an appellate court. I do not want to enter into the technicalities of limitation and maintainability of appeal, in order to do substantial justice between the parties. 1 am more than satisfied that errors apparent on the face of the record are available in the orders passed by the Collector and the RAA.
7. For these reasons I dispose of the writ petition in the following terms-
(i) The orders of Collector Jhunjhunu and the RAA Sikar respectivelypassed on March 28, 1984 and September 22, 1987 are set aside.
(ii) The matter is remitted back to the District Collector Jhunjhunu to adjudicate upon the following question-
(a) Whether the patta issued to Net Ram on October 22, 1975 was valid?
(b) What is the sanctity of the patla issued to Chhaju Ram on September 4, 1981?
(iii) The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Collector Jhunjhunu on April 16,2001 for seeking further instructions. Learned District Collector is expected to decide the matter as expe-ditiously as possible after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. Till the matter is decided the parties shall maintain status quo in regard to land in question.
(iv) No costs.