SBCWP NO.473/2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.473/2008. Halena Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Weir Vs. Potparivahan Sarak Parivahan and ors. Date of order :- 21/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Karan Pal Singh for the petitioner. **** Aggrieved by the order dated 14/9/2007, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite an order passed by the court on 16/5/1997 holding that the disputed property is not a nazul property, in subsequent order dated 14/9/2007, the disputed property is considered to be nazul property and thereby two contradictory orders have been issued. Learned counsel further urged that even otherwise entire constriction was borne by the petitioner and thereby if he is ordered to be evicted then, it is going to cause irreparable loss to him. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned dated 14/9/2007. Perusal of the order dated 14/9/2007 shows that pursuant to an order of this Court dated 26/9/1997 in SB Civil Revision Petition No.856/1997, court concerned was given direction to decide as to whether the property in SBCWP NO.473/2008. 2 dispute is a nazul property or not and it is only after drawing such a conclusion, that the order of execution of the decree should be passed. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this High Court, matter was taken up for consideration and taking note of the fact that District Collector Bharatpur issued an order on 2/1/1995 declaring a land in dispute to be nazul property, it was held that pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the disputed property is a nazul property inasmuch as, the order of Collector passed was not subsequently challenged by any one and in that view of the fact, said order still exists. In view of above, when pursuant to the direction of the High Court a conclusion has been drawn on the basis of facts and material before the court, same cannot be assailed on the ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as, it is not a case where two contradictory orders exist rather the first order is superseded by the order passed by the High Court and second order was passed pursuant to the direction issued in the revision petition by the High Court, it is thus, not a case where two contradictory orders exist and furthermore even if the petitioner has incurred some amount for construction of shops then, it is being a nazul property no right is created in his favour. In view of above, I find no error in the impugned-order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil