1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9850/2008 (Ashok Purohit & Anr. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order :: 15.12.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.M.L. Purohit, for the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case, after issuance of notice under Section 41 for acquisition of the land of petitioner, proceedings were initiated for acquisition and finally on 06.04.1996 award was passed under Sections 11 and 16 of the Land Revenue Act, 1894. The case of petitioner is that still he has not received any compensation in lieu of acquisition of his land and the land has been mutated in the name of U.I.T., therefore, under Section 90-B he is entitled for regularization of his land. In my opinion, the acquisition proceedings were completed in case of petitioner vide award dated 06.04.1996 Annexures-3 and 4. Thereafter, in the year 1999 an amendment was made and Section 90-B was inserted. 2 In this case, petitioner is not challenging the award finally passed after due proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, but petitioner is claiming his right under the amendment made in the year 1999 while inserting Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that when petitioner is not challenging acquisition proceedings, so also, the award finally passed in the year 1996, then no case is made out for interference by this Court. Further, admittedly amendment was made and Section 90-B was inserted in the Act of 1956 in the year 1999, therefore, subsequent amendment cannot be made applicable retrospectively. The claim of the petitioner on the basis of Notification dated 26.05.2000 is totally unfounded because U.I.T. can regularize the land under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 only. Therefore, in my opinion, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Further it is also clarified that UIT, Udaipur shall not regularize any land contrary to Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 which is statutory in nature. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. A.K. Chouhan/- A.K. Chouhan/-