1 14 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2719/2006 (Jagdish Bhadu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 28th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.M.S.Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr.D.K.Godara ) Mr.Pappu Sangwa) for the respondents. .... BY THE COURT Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the detailed order passed by this Court while rejecting the contempt petition filed in this case (WCP No.160/2006) on 9th inst., and in view of the reply submissions as made on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner shall stand advised not to proceed with this writ petition any further and to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law and, therefore, seeks permission for the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the matter stood concluded even before filing of this writ petition and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 2 The facts have already been noticed while rejecting the contempt petition as filed in this case on 09.01.2009; and, while noticing the submissions as per the reply of the respondents, this Court observed thus: “Even when this Court has directed that the respondent would not pass any order unless the pending proceedings of regularisation are decided, when the non- petitioner has, prima facie, shown that prior to the passing of the said order, the application as moved by the petitioner for regularization had already been ordered to be consigned to record by the resolution dated 05.04.2006; and prior to that, encroachment removal proceedings had been undertaken on 19.03.2006 and were approved on 20.03.2006, it cannot be accepted that the non-petitioners have drawn all such proceedings after passing of the order by this Court. The photographs with bills dated 27.06.2006 and 25.06.2006 as produced on record by the petitioner hardly appear to be of evidence that non-petitioners did anything after passing of the order by this Court. All the proceedings as stated by the non-petitioners essentially being those of the record of the Gram Panchayat, cannot be assumed to be fake or fabricated. Noticeable it is that even as per the averments in the writ petition, as back as on 08.02.2006, the Gram Panchayat had informed the petitioner about the complaint made by the villagers of his having a possession on the public utility land and he was called upon to produce evidence within 15 days and else Panchayat would be removing the construction.” 3 In the present state of record, if the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw with liberty for the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedies, this Court is of opinion that such permission could be granted, of course, while leaving it open for all the parties to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid, this writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni