IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4937 of 2002. Ramphool son of Shri Jyanarayan Meena & Another Versus The Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur & Another Date of Order ::: 23.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Vikram Singh, advocate, for Shri S.K. Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner Shri Sohan Lal Sharma, Counsel for the respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2002 passed by the Jaipur Development Authority, Appellate Tribunal, whereby a reference application filed by the petitioners for permanent injunction has been dismissed. The cotention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are in possession of the disputed land bearing Khasra No.90 in Vilage Baliyawala @ Harchandpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, measuring 3-bighas for last more than 40-years and, on the basis of their possession, they are entitled to get their land regularized from the J.D.A., therefore, they filed a reference application before the J.D.A. Appellate Authority with a prayer that they may not be dispossessed from the disputed land and, their land may be regularized. The Appellate Tribunal wrongly rejected their application for reference, therefore, the said order of the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners were not in posssesion of the disputed land for last more than 40-years and, they were merely trasspasser over some land, where they have installed their `ara-machine', therefore, the tribunal was right in rejecting their application. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in support of his contention has placed on record a copy of the Khasra-Girdhawari of Samvat year 2050 and 2051 (corresponding year, 1993-94 and 1994-95). The reference application was filed in the year, 2001. The petitioner has not placed on record any documents to show their possession for last more than 40-years over the disputed land, as contended by him. I have considered the reasons assigned by the learned tribunal and the finding whereby the tribunal has held that the petitioners are not entitled for any regularization in respect of disputed piece of land, including the land where the petitioners installed their `ara-machine'. I do not find any error in the order passed by the tribunal, so as to interfere in it. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. Ashok/