SBCWP NO.3672/00. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3672/2000. Jagdish Puri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- May 12, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri J.K. Singhi for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Singodiya for the respondents. ****** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after his first writ petition was dismissed at the Principal Seat of this Court on 9/11/1994. Petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction to the respondents that acquisition proceedings commenced by the UIT Ajmer with regard to land bearing Khasra No.951 on Pushkar Ajmer Road be quashed and the respondents be restrained from encroaching upon the said land. SBCWP NO.3672/00. 2 2) Shri J.K. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that dismissal of earlier writ petition being SBCWP No.4998/1994 of this court would not bar the present writ petition because in that writ petition, prayer was differently worded where petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to give vacant possession of the site to the petitioner and further that he declared to be continues as the khatedar of the land. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was bonafide purchaser of the land and accordingly the land was mutated in his name in 1969. UIT Ajmer in his various letters offered to give to the petitioner the plot of the developed land in lieu of the acquired land which promise it did not honour. It is contended that even from the tenure of the reply filed by the UIT Ajmer, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and therefore it cannot be said that any compensation was actually paid to Yudhishthar Narayan Bhargava as alleged. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition be allowed and the acquisition proceedings be quashed. 3) Shri S.K. Singodiya, learned counsel for respondent UIT Ajmer has opposed the writ petition and submitted that already land in SBCWP NO.3672/00. 3 dispute of Khasra Nos.950 and 951 have been taken in possession and road has been constructed and the part of the land has been given to the RTDC for construction a building which is being presently used by the pilgrims on the Pushkar and Ajmer City. It is submitted that civil suit was filed by Yudhisthar Narain Bhargava with regard to the said land in which he was declared as title holder of the land and a direction was issued by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.245/1983 vide judgment and decree dated 31/3/1993 requiring the respondents to pay to him compensation. Respondents have already paid him a sum of Rs.3,21,745/-, as per the direction of the court on 7/5/2001. Learned counsel submitted that Yudhishthar Narain Bhargava was declared as khatedar of the said land pursuant to the order of the SDO dated 16/2/1968 and therefore the aforesaid decree was passed. 4) The present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner could not have been maintained because his earlier writ petition was already dismissed on 9/11/1994 by this court holding that adjudication of claim would involve disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone SBCWP NO.3672/00. 4 into under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It was left upon to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if permissible under the law. This time, however, petitioner has differently worded the prayer clause. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in possession of that land as the same has been taken by the respondents for construction of the road and the building for the pilgrims. The facts with regard to civil suit filed by Yudhishthar Narain Bhargava who claims to be title holder of the land and payment of compensation to him are mentioned in para 10 of the reply, could not be countered by the petitioner. 5) In the circumstances, respondents cannot be required to pay the double compensation for the same piece of land which they have acquired. If petitioner had any grievance, he can proceed against Yudhishthar Narain Bhargava for recovery of his share of compensation provided he is eventually declared title holder of that land in accordance with law. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil