IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.106 of 2005. Hajari Lal son of late Shri Birdhi Chand Sharma VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 11/09/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, J. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Addl.Govt. Counsel for respondents **** BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.09.2003, whereby the Collector (Panchayat) Jaipur hold the petitioner as encroacher on the land in dispute and directed the S.D.O. Phagi, Jaipur to remove the alleged encroachment on the same issue the petitioner was disqualified vide order dated 27.12.2004, which has also been challenged. The petitioner has also prayed for regularization of the land. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in dispute is ancestral land and this fact has not been considered by the Collector, (Panchayat) Jaipur while passing the impugned order dated 27.09.2003, whereby the encroachment on the land in dispute has been said to be correct. The said proceedings have been initiated on the complaint of Lalu Ram, who is political rival of the petitioner. Thereafter, in enquiry also no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner and the impugned order of disqualification has been passed from the Office of the Ward Panch, Gram Panchayat & Panchayat Samiti, Phagi, Jaipur by holding the reply of the petitioner not satisfactory. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the revenue record has been ignored by both the authorities. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. I have gone through the entire record of the case and further considered the rival submissions made by the parties. In my view, there is some reference of the revenue record, but there is no discussion on the same, therefore, I hold that the the order is not speaking order, therefore, both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed being violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of quashing the impugned orders dated 27.09.2003 (Annexure-7) and 27.12.2004 (Annexure-10). (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. ashok/