1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4176/2007 Sugna Ram. vs. State of Raj. and others. Date : 16.7.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.M Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Electricity Board even did not required the land of khasra no.29 which is khatedari land of the petitioner and even the Town Planner informed the concerned authorities that the land of khasra nos.23 and 29 are earmarked for industrial purpose, despite this, the concerned Tehsildar malafidely recommended the acquisition of land of khasra no.29. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner gave several representations to the State but none of the representations have been responded by the State nor the petitioner has been informed that khasra no.29 has been released from the acquisition of the proposed land. 2 I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case. The land can be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and detail procedure is given. Mere sending recommendation by the Tehsildar is of no consequence and not a decision of the State to acquire the land of khasra no.29 nor it can be treated to be a request of the electricity board for acquisition of the land of khasra no.29 if they have not made any request for acquiring the land. After initiation of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to raise objections under the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition is premature at this time. In view of the above reason, this writ petition is dismissed as premature. However, the petitioner may raise his grievance before the competent authority in accordance with law. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya