IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1315/2007 Guru Charan Singh Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 22.7.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Ashwani Chobisa, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The grounds which the petitioner has urged are all relating to appreciation of the question of fact and findings given by the authorities, which cannot be re- appreciated in the writ jurisdiction. The assessment had been made initially and the liability of Rs.13.5 lacs was determined against the petitioner. Thereafter a fresh survey was carried out on 3.7.2003 and the liability was redetermined by as Rs.6.34 lacs. I do not find that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice or any jurisdictional error which may give rise to interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has contended that the respondent Mining Engineer has wrongly taken the depth of the pit for the purpose of the assessment of the dead rent as 0.80 Mtr. instead of the depth as 0.70 Mtr. So far as the above contention is concerned needless to say that the revised assessment reducing the demand from Rs.13.5 lacs to Rs.6.34 lacs was made after afresh inspection was carried out after the notice to the petitioner where the dimension were taken and a note prepared. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not present at the aforesaid time when the inspection which was carried out. No reason for the absence has been given as a notice had already been served upon the petitioner as was admitted by the learned counsel that the notice was served upon the petitioner intimating the date for fresh inspection for the purpose of carrying out the assessment. The question as to whether the depth in 0.80 Mtrs. or that the depth is 0.70 Mtr. as claimed by the petitioner as a question of fact which cannot be re-appreciated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case no ground for interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS