1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5444/2004 Shiv Basti Sangharsh Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Arvind Samdaria, for the petitioner Mr.Manoj Garg, for Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 4th January, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, a group of petitioners represented through Shiv Basti Sangharsh Samiti claims allotment of shops in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Ganganagar at reserve price as they were displaced from the place where Krishi Mandi shops in question were constructed. 2/3 3. This Court while considering second stay application moved by the petitioner, by a detailed order dated 15.5.2007 directed the State Government and Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to proceed with the auction of the shops vide notification dated 12.4.2007 and at the same time also directed the respondents State Government and Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to take final decision with regard to allotment of shops to the members of the petitioner – Samiti at reserve price as resolved by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti within a period of one month. 4. The learned counsel for Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sh. Garg has produced copy of communication dated 11.6.2007 whereby the Director of the Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur of State Government has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that upon examination of their case on merits, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti cannot be compelled to provide alternative accommodation at reserve price or shops to such displaced persons. 5. In view of these subsequent developments and rejection of claim of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition has become infructuous. The petitioner – Samiti espousing the cause of various such persons has failed to produce any document or evidence in support of right, title or interest of any of the 3/3 members of its Association over the land in question. Therefore, in these circumstances, no relief can be granted by this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction. 6. Since the respondents have already considered the case of the petitioner on merits and have rejected their claim vide communication dtd.11.6.2007, copy of which is placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.5 Ss/-