1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14506/2010 Ramgopal Vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 16/12/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri D.P. Pujari for the petitioner. ****** The petitioner has come up claiming himself to be a vigilant citizen and asserting that the allotment of land or possession of such land to respondent no.2 to 6 was illegal as the land in dispute was chara gah. On record, it is evident that the government itself is contesting the matter. Initially, when the Sub Tehsildar declared the respondents as trespasser u/s.91 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, they filed appeal. The Additional Collector by order dated 17.7.2004 remanded the matter to Sub Tehsildar holding that the land in dispute was lawfully allotted to the private respondents on 5.8.1965 and when the allotment was cancelled, the affected parties i.e. respondents challenged the same before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which restored the allotment by order dated 22.1.2002. The order declaring respondents as trespasser was passed without giving them proper opportunity of hearing and therefore the matter was remanded. On remand, the Sub Tehsildar held that since the appeal against the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 22.1.2002 is pending, therefore, till that appeal was decided, the respondents could not be held to be trespassers u/s.91. The matter was therefore deferred to await decision of the appeal. The appeal filed 2 by the State against the order of the Board of Revenue, as per the own showing of the petitioner was dismissed by the Single Bench vide order dated 28.12.2007 and thereafter by the division bench by order dated 25.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has locus in the matter because the action against the private respondents was initiated on his complaint and that he even filed a Public Interest Litigation in the matter. But that would not mean that the private respondents as citizens of the nation would not have any remedy against the order passed by the authorities declaring them trespasser especially when it is shown that they were allottees. The State Government is always free to challenge the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue while rejecting its successive appeals. I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the State Government to challenge the aforesaid judgements. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-