1 D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APEAL (W) NO.764/98 MAHAJAN FIELD FIRING RANGE VISHTAPIT VIKAS KHAJUWALA & ANOTHER. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 25-03-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTUCE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. P.P.Chaudhary, for Appellants. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, GA, for Respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.10.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.760/93. From the tenor of the judgment, it reveals that it is a consent order based on the judgment in the case of Smt.Tulsi & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, decided on 09.10.1995 and, thereby, the learned Single Judge accepted the prayers (b), © and (d) of the writ petition. So far as prayer (a) is concerned, the same was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per 2 notification, in reference, the appellants were required to pay two times of the reserve price of land, but the respondents charged four times of the reserve price for the land allotted and, thereby the extra amount charged from the petitioner-appellants needs to be refunded. For the purpose of aforesaid arguments, we have looked into the facts and grounds raised in the writ petition and perusal of the facts narrated therein, reveals that the necessary amount was paid in 1986 on allotment of land and the writ petition was filed in 1993 as the respondent demanded additional amount, calculating it on eight times of reserve price, as against the original amount charged on four times to reserve price. The writ petition was filed precisely for that reason and in the case of Smt. Tulsi & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, the aforesaid controversy was decided and it was held that the respondent cannot raise demand of extra amount and, therefore, the learned Single Judge accepted the prayers (b), © and (d) of the writ petition as the same were covered by the judgment of Smt. Tulsi (Supra). We find that prayer (a) cannot be accepted not only in view of the 3 judgment of the learned Single Judge, but otherwise also as challenge to the rate of land charged and paid by the petitioner in the year 1986 was greatly delayed, inasmuch as the allotment of the land was made in the year, 1986 and the amount demanded was also deposited by the appellants without any protest, thus, after expiry of the period of 7 years, it cannot be questioned, more so when the amount, so demanded, was deposited without any protest, thus appellants are even estopped to raise a issue regarding rate of the land so charged in the year 1986. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the judgment and from the additional reasons given in the judgments, we find that prayer No. 16 (a) of the writ petition was rightly denied by the learned Single Judge. In view of the above, the appeal, so preferred by the appellants, is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. (NARAYAN ROY), C.J. scd