Review 79/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Review Petition No.79/2009 in Civil Writ Petition No.3356/2008 Smt. Mooli & Teeja Versus Hemant Choyal & Ors. Date of Order ::: 13/04/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, for review petitioner (Writ-respdt. 5 & 6) Instant petition has been filed by writ respondent Nos.5 & 6 seeking review of order dt.18/03/09 passed by this Court in CWP-3356/2008 (Hemant & Others Vs. Principal Secretary UDH Department & Others). Review petitioners (writ respondent No.5 & 6) are alleged to be khatedars as regards disputed land bearing Khasra Nos.433 to 446 of village Mahal, Tehsil Sanganer (Jaipur district), measuring 2.25 hectares. This Court while disposing of CWP-3356/2008 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 10 herein (writ petitioners) taking note of submissions made by Counsel for Jaipur Development Authority (“JDA”) observed that scheme for regularisation as submitted by Shankar Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti may be considered in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by order dt.18/03/09 (supra), review petitioners have raised grievance that they are khatedars and land owners of Khasra No.433 to 446 measuring 2.25 Review 79/09 //2// hectares and their applications for change of land use were considered; in such circumstances, observations made by this Court vide order dt.16/03/09 to consider scheme of regularisation submitted by Grih Nirman Samiti will certainly cause prejudice to their claim. Suffice it to say that the Counsel for the JDA made a statement that the authority only considers applications seeking regularisation on “first come first serve” and the application submitted by Society on 16/01/09 could also be considered on its turn. However, this Court has not recorded any finding on merits but considered it appropriate to observe that the JDA may consider the scheme furnished by Society in accordance with law. This Court finds no justification to review as sought for by present petitioners. Consequently, review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.2/79REVW09CW3356-08Apr13.doc