1 D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1221/2008 Shastri Nagar Housing Board Vyapar Sangh V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. 25.7.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.G.P.Kaushik for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.7.2008 dismissing the writ petition no.5704/2008 filed by the appellant. In the writ petition, prayer was made for directions to the respondents not to demolish the wall constructed by the members of the appellant- Association below chhajja protruding their shops and to maintain status quo till their representations are decided. The wall in question, which is sought to be demolished by the respondents in fact, according to the respondents, has been constructed in the veranda facing shops. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has invited our attention to the letter dated 16th of March, 2006 written by the Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board to the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur and the notice dated 23rd April, 2004 issued to one of their members by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur and argued that in-fact the petitioner- Association themselves constructed the chhajja in front of the shop and it was not in veranda. 2 It appears that the respondents are proceeding to demolish the aforementioned wall with a view to implementing the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28th April, 2004 passed in D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.4700/2003 Shah Shamim Bano V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment directed the respondents-Rajasthan Housing Board, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur and the State Government to remove the encroachments and restore the verandas, which were existing at the time of allotment of the shops. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show whether the land covered by the chhajja was ever allotted to its members/shop owners. The Division Bench in the above referred to PIL found that this land was meant for passage for pedestrian, buyers and consumers and it was never allotted to shop keepers. Thus, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to above, we do not find any case for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar