1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 701 of 1998 TULSI RAM V/S STATE & ORS Mr. NK RASTOGI, for the appellant. Mr. MANISH SHISODIA, for the respondents. Date of Order : 5.8.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 11.5.1998, dismissing the writ petition, summarily, on the ground of delay and latches. The necessary facts are, that the petitioner was granted patta of the land measuring 30x45 feet being Annexure/1, and since then he is continuing in possession, thereafter, office order Annexure/2 was passed on 15.5.1993, canceling 13 pattas, including that of the petitioner appellant, whose name finds place at item number 6. Against this order, revision was filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed, vide order dated 22.5.1996, holding that the patta has been granted without 2 following due procedure as prescribed by law, therefore, cancellation is valid. As against this, the appellant has produced Annexure/6, being the order of the same authority dated 6.9.1994, passed in revisions of other six persons, included in Annexure/2, which revisions were allowed, and the order Annexure/2 being 14.5.1993, was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the `Vikas Adhikari' with a direction, to give separate notices to each of the allottees, and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing, to pass fresh order, in accordance with law. It was contended in the writ petition, that in such circumstances, the order Annexure/3 and Annexure/6 are contradictory in nature, and therefore the order Annexure/3 is liable to be quashed. The writ petition was filed on 18.11.1997. When this appeal came up earlier for hearing on 22.7.2008, considering the fact, that in the Division Bench, there was interim order passed by this court on 17.7.1998, directing that the possession of the appellant shall not be disturbed, which order was confirmed, way back on 29.11.2000, thus, the appellant is continuing in possession, a specific quarry was put to both of the 3 learned counsel, to inform us as to what has been ultimate fate of other six persons, whose revisions were allowed vide Annexure/6. In reply to that quarry, the appellant has filed an affidavit on 30.7.2008, informing that the appellant made inquiry in this regard, and contacted the allottees, but none of them gave any specific reply, and did not disclose the result of the case. However after remand vide annexure/6, all these six allottees are still continuing in possession of the plots, allotted to them, and most of them have raised construction, and are residing there. Learned counsel for the respondents submits, that he has not received any instructions in that regard, as nobody is responding, despite registered communications. Considering the totality of circumstances, firstly, that Annexures/ 3 & 6, are apparently contradictory orders, and the fact, that the other six allottees, included in Annexure/2, who were similarly situated as the petitioners, were/are still continuing in possession, the learned Single Judge, cannot be said to be justified in dismissing the writ petition, summarily. 4 In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is restored back to the file of learned Single Judge, to decide the matter on merit, in accordance with law. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /ns./