1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 306 of 2000 GURUCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS V/S DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BIKANER Mr. RAVEEV PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RL JANGID, AAG, for the respondent Date of Order : 15.10.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE MRS. MEENA V. GOMBER,J. ORDER ----- In compliance of the order dated 30.7.2009, explanation-cum-factual report has been submitted by the officer concerned. Having gone through that report, we are satisfied that there was no deliberate omission on the part of the officer in not responding to this Court in time. We further find from the explanation that the matter was not decided on the ground that initially after passing of the order by the learned Single Judge, there was a stay by the Division Bench directing status quo to be maintained, and therefore, the matter was not decided. At the same time, it is also pleaded that during the interregnum period, the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was repealed by Repealing Act of 2005, and there being no saving clause for pending matters, the matter was closed on 2.1.2006. In our view, the question, about the effect of the Repealing Act on the pending proceedings did come to be considered by Division Bench of this Court in umpteen number of cases, including that in Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. District Rehabilitation Officer-cum- 2 Sub Divisional Officer & Ors. decided on 25.10.2007, reported in 2008(1) DNJ (Raj.) 396. In our view, in view of the said Division Bench Judgment, the closure of proceedings cannot be sustained on the ground of repeal. Then we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits, and find that the Divisional Commissioner vide order, Annex.3 had upheld the order, Annex.2, whereby the Sanads dated 19.4.1974 and 21.5.1975 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the allotment in favour of Thakar Singh came to an end once upon a time, which had become final, thereafter land was again allotted to other persons, who had sold, which sale was found to be violative of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and proceedings under Section 175 were taken. The land then vested in the competent authority and was thereafter again allotted, and thus, the sequence of events taking place one after another after the allotment of Thakar Singh having come to an end, in which sequence, the land has come to the appellant, there was order occasion for remanding the matter back, apart from the fact that the appellant claims to be in possession since 1977 and to have invested upon and improved the land. In our view, all these aspects can very well be projected by the appellant before the concerned authority, to whom the matter has been remanded, and obviously it is 3 expected that all contentions raised by all the parties concerned shall be considered objectively, dispassionately and compassionately in accordance with the law. The appeal thus, has no force and is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that till the matter is decided on merits, status quo regarding actual physical possession of the land, as it stands today, shall be maintained. ( MEENA V. GOMBER ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/