1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6963/2009 (Bhagwan Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6964/2009 (Poonam Harplani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7050/2009 (Bhawani Singh Rajput Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7051/2009 (Bhagwan Das Paldiwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7052/2009 Shri Vardhman Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7053/2009 (Padam Kanswa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7055/2009 (Dharam Chand Dhabaria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7056/2009 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7057/2009 (Fateh Singh Pipada Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7101/2009 (Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7102/2009 (Sanjay Harjani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 05.03.2010 2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.S.K.Saksena, for the petitioners. Mr.R.P.Singh, AAG for respondent No.1. Mr.Deendayal Sharma, for respondent No.2. Mr.Peush Nag, for respondent No.3. By the Court: Since on same set of fact, similar relief has been claimed, all the aforesaid writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. It is stated by the learned counsel for petitioners that Division Bench has already decided similar matters holding that before taking further action in the matter, respondents may provide an opportunity of hearing to petitioners and proceed further. These are the matters where the dispute exists regarding location of land more specifically as to whether it is falling in the catchment areas of “Anasagar” or not? Following directions passed by the Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.605/2009 along with connected matters is quoted hereunder for ready reference: “These disputes can only be settled if the appellants file their reply to the notices. Learned counsel for the respondents agreed that unless they approach and file their reply, the dispute cannot be settled. They are agreeable for disposal of the appeals in the following terms; the writ petitioners will file reply to the notice dated 20.05.2009 within two weeks from today before the Authorised Officer, who shall heard the appellants, consider their reply and disposed it of within 10 days 3 thereafter. Till then, status quo shall be maintained on spot.” In view of aforesaid direction, these writ petitions are also decided with the direction to petitioners that they may file reply to the notice within a period of two weeks to the respondent. On receipt of the reply within the aforesaid period, respondent concerned is directed to decide the matter within a period of ten days thereafter. If, it is found that petitioners have encroached upon the catchment areas, then necessary action for removal of encroachment would be taken so that catchment areas of “Anasagar” is made free for flow of water. This is more so when the State as such and Ajmer city in particular, facing acute water problem. The outcome of aforesaid order would, however, be informed to this Court after a month on completion of necessary exercise, as directed above. While deciding the matter, revenue record, as was existing in the year 1948 would be taken into consideration as was directed by the Division Bench, seat at Jodhpur, in a public interest litigation. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. The Registry is directed to list this case again before this Court immediately on submission of compliance report by the respondents. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety