1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2780/2009 (Joga Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 06.04.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In this case, the petitioners, who are 124 in number, are challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents vide notification dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure-5) as well as the notification dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure-12). Earlier, a Public Interest Litigation was preferred before this Court by Kishan Bhumi Awapti Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, Barmer in which the acquisition proceedings questioned in this writ petition were challenged. In para No.9 of the writ petition, following averments have been made:- 2 “9. That the petitioners were under a bona fide belief that the above mentioned writ petition was with regard to Jalipa lignite project and in the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner without verifying the facts, filed Vakalatnamas before Hon'ble Court in the above mentioned writ petition. It will be relevant to mention here that no application for being impleaded as a party was filed by the petitioners as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and only Vakalatnamas were filed. However, after obtaining the copy of the writ petition, the petitioners came to know that the writ petition was filed challenging the acquisition in general and was pertaining to Kapurdi lignite project as the acquisition with regard to Jalipa lignite was yet to commence. In the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioners filed an application for withdrawing the Vakalatnamas filed by them. However, before the application could had been disposed off, the writ petition above mentioned itself came to be disposed of by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dt.25.7.2008 while observing that as regards the environmental aspects are concerned no requisite datas have been submitted by the petitioner and as per the reply filed by the respondent it was clear that environmental aspects were considered from all stand points threadbare. It was further observed that the question with regard to the rates of the land can be decided by the appropriate authority under Sec. 18, 23 & 30 of the Act of 1894. As far as the giving benefit of Rehabilitation Policy of 2007, it was stated 3 that he respondent had undertaken to grant the benefits of the policy to the persons whose land is being acquired, therefore, there was no requirement to pass separate order in this regard. Therefore, the writ petition was accordingly disposed of. The certified copy of the order dt. 25.7.2008 is submitted herewith & marked as ANNEXURE-4. It will be thus apparent that the earlier writ petition was with regard to challenge to the acquisition in general and at the time of filing of the writ petition the acquisition proceedings with regard to Jalipa lignite project were not even started.” Meaning thereby, admittedly, all these petitioners filed their Vakalatnamas before Hon'ble Division Bench in the writ petition filed under the lable of public interest litigation by Kishan Bhumi Awapti Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, Barmer. It is made clear that in the PIL, there is no question to file any separate application because in PIL all the effected persons are raising voice for public grievance. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners for entertaining this writ petition is that under bona fide belief they filed Vakalatnamas and participated in the matter is not tenable because admittedly the petitioners were before the Hon'ble Division Bench and matter was decided by the Division Bench in their presence. The Hon'ble Division Bench while deciding the 4 writ petition being DB Civil Writ Petition No.7208/07 filed by Kishan Bhumi Awapti Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, Barmer, has made following adjudication:- “Result of the aforesaid discussion is that so far acquisition is concerned, we do not find any ground to interfere, and so far other reliefs are concerned, in view of the pleadings taken in Additional Affidavit of the State and Para 9 of the reply by respondent No.6, the grievances stands redressed.” Meaning thereby, the Hon'ble Division Bench has found that there is no ground for interference in the acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petition filed by Kishan Bhumi Awapti Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, Barmer was altogether different and here in this case, the petitioners are raising ground against the acquisition proceedings differently. Further, it is submitted that an identical writ petition was filed by one Birma Ram being SB Civil Writ Petition No.2632/2008 in which notices have been issued by this Court. In my opinion, once, the Hon'ble Division Bench has adjudicated the matter and the petitioners were before the Hon'ble Division Bench and matter of 5 acquisition was decided, then it is not open for Single Judge to assess the correctness of the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. However, if the petitioners are having any ground to be agitated, then they are required to file review petition before Hon'ble Division Bench in the writ petition filed by Kishan Bhumi Awapti Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, Barmer, if so advised. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun