1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.945/2009 (Mahendra Vs. State & Ors.) Date of order : 09.02.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Dr. Sachin Acharya, for the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that his construction upon his land cannot be treated as encroachment and the said construction of the petitioner cannot be removed in pursuance of the judgment dated 12.01.2007 rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.789/2006. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to first determine whether the petitioner is in encroachment of the land in question or he is having any valid title in his favor, thereafter, can proceed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the grab of the judgment dated 12.1.2007 2 rendered in DB Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.789/2006 by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the respondents are removing the petitioner from the land upon which petitioner is in possession and residing, therefore, directions may be issued to the respondents that first they shall determine whether the petitioner has made any encroachment or not and for such determination, he has already filed representation before the respondents. I have perused the pleadings of the writ petition, so also the aforesaid judgment dated 12.1.2007 rendered by Hon'ble Division of this Court, which was further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, as well the notice dated 14.6.2007 given to the petitioner by the respondents. I have also perused the order-sheet of the contempt petition filed by Baltej Singh & Ors. before Hon'ble Division Bench for compliance of the aforesaid judgment dated 12.1.2007 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench. In this case, in the aforesaid judgment dated 12.1.2007 rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, following order was made : “In the result, while setting aside the resolution Nos. 2 & 8 dated 21.12.2005 (Ex.P-5) in so far as they pertain to the regularization of the land on public roads/public streets, we direct the Municipal 3 Board to remove the encroachments and evict all those who are not members of the Tehbazari Mandi Union within a period of three months. Eviction of the members of Tehbazari Mandi Union however shall abide by the decision of the learned single Judge in the aforesaid civil second appeal. We consider so to do appropriate in judicial propriety because many of trespassers are those who are members of Tehbazari Mandi Union, which has filed the aforesaid appeal in which status quo order is obtaining till date. We direct the registry to place the aforesaid second appeal before the appropriate bench for final disposal at the earliest. Let a copy of this judgment be placed on the records of aforementioned S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.181/96. Any dispute with regard to the fact whether a particular trespasser is member of the said Union of not, shall be decided by the learned Single Judge in the said appeal.” In my opinion, when the respondents are complying with the directions issued by Hon'ble Division Bench and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court then obviously Single Judge cannot assess the validity of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench given in Public Interest Litigation. If any contravention is made by the respondents while complying with the directions issued by Hon'ble Division Bench then the petitioner is required to approach Hon'ble Division Bench and raise his grievance before Hon'ble Division Bench that the 4 respondents are acting contrary to the directions issued by Hon'ble Division Bench. Therefore, it is obvious that specific directions were issued to remove encroachment and to evict all those who are not member of Tehbazari Mandi Union within a period of three months by the Division Bench in which no interference can be made by single Judge while entertaining fresh writ petition for same subject matter. In this view of the matter, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is free to move an application before Hon'ble Division Bench for redresaal of his grievance. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun