1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13545/2010 Vijay Pal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan & anr 1.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Mohammed Anees - for the petitioner BY THE COURT: It is submitted that without complying with the provisions of section 91 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') petitioner's construction was demolished. He was, thereafter, served with a notice (Annex.3) under section 91 of the Act. Before the aforesaid, petitioner made a representation against demolition of construction in contravention of legal provisions. Prayer of the petitioner is, accordingly, to direct the respondents to restore the position as was existing prior to service of legal notice by the petitioner. I have perused record of the case. I find that petitioner was served with notice under section 91 of the Act by registering a case bearing No.11/2010. A reply to the said notice has not been filed as there exist no averment to that effect and even no 2 document has been annexed. So far as Annexures-1 and 2 are concerned, though, representations were made, however, petitioner has not filed document to prove his ownership on the land in dispute. This is in view of the fact that there is nothing on record to prove legal possession by the petitioner. As such, petitioner has been treated as trespasser and, accordingly, served with the notice under section 91 of the Act. After doing legal formalities, if action has been taken by the respondents, it cannot be annulled in these proceedings. If, at all, petitioner is still having grievance, remedy lies to him by maintaining a suit. In view of aforesaid, I am not inclined to accept this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma