1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 154 of 2007 BHANWARLAL & ORS V/S STATE OF RAJ. & ORS Mr. JAGAT TATIYA for Mr. MANISH SHISHODIA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. BL BHATI,A.G.A., for the respondent Date of Order : 7.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. ORDER ----- Vide order dt. 24.10.2007 counsel for the petitioner was directed to furnish copy of the award pursuant to which payment of compensation was made. Then, since further time was sought, on 1.11.2007 six weeks further time was granted making the order peremptory that if the copy of the award is not produced within six weeks, the appeal will stand dismissed without reference to the Court. Learned counsel has purportedly filed the copy of the award on 1.12.2007 but then a look at the document shows that this is not the copy of the award but purports to be some extract of the award only. We have gone through the matter on merits. From perusal of the material available on record it is writ 2 large that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing by the Tehsildar. Not only that against the award petitioner has filed an application for reference, and it also transpires from the document produced alongwith reply as Annex.R/2, that the learned SDO himself had found after hearing the parties that the petitioners were not the persons entitled to the amount of award, as awarded, so much so that time and again notices were given to the petitioners to produce the heirship certificate, which they failed. Then the copies of the notices have also been produced. That apart as transpires from the reply, that effecting recovery, attachment of certain movable property was effected, and articles were given in Supardari of the petitioner appellant, but then the petitioner did not keep to the terms of Supardari, and therefore, FIR has also been lodged, and all these facts have not been disclosed in the writ petition. It is in this background that the learned Single Judge, though has not passed speaking order, and has dismissed the writ petition, only on the ground that the writ petition against the order of recovery by Tehsildar is not maintainable. From the perusal of the entire material on record, and discussion, made above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the ultimate dismissal of the writ petition. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( MOHAMMAD RAFIQ ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/