1 S/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8101/2007 [BALU SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.] Date of Judgment : 03.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.Chaitanya Gahlot for the petitioner. Mr.M.R.Godara for Mr. V.K.Mathur for the respondent ***** This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.02.2007 passed by the District Judge, Churu in appeal preferred by the petitioner under the Provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1971. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non- petitioners were alloted land measuring 1695.75 sq.mt. Hence if the petitioner is occupying the land out of the land so alloted to the non- petitioner then the order of the eviction can be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner even contended that if the petitioner, is occupying the land which has otherwise been alloted to the non-petitioner he is ready to vacate the premises only to the extent of making the total land area of non- petitioner to be 6955.75 sq.mt. and beyond that the respondents non- 2 petitioners have no right to seek eviction. It is further contended that litigation in regard to same land was agitated by the petitioner against the Municipal Board by maintaining a suit. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the order impugned is concerned, it pertains to the area so alloted to the non- petitioners and beyond that there exist no order of eviction of the petitioner hence the writ petition is preferred only on presumptions. Looking to the facts came on record it becomes clear that the impugned order dated 13.02.2007 confirming the order of Estate Officer pertains to the eviction of the petitioners to the extent they are occupying the land so alloted to the non-petitioners and not beyond that. The petitioner could not show from the impugned order that there exist any direction to evict the petitioner beyond the land so alloted to the non- petitioner and is being occupied by the petitioners thus in view of the fact it is not borne out from the record thus whatsoever contended by the petitioner based on appreciation even is correct. In view of the above when the impugned order does not provide a direction of eviction of the petitioner beyond the land so possessed by him and which otherwise alloted to the non-petitioners, the order impugned cannot be interfered by this Court. 3 In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta