CW 13182/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.13182/2010 Smt. Pushpa Devi Versus Sub-Div.Officer Beawar & Ors. Date of Order ::: 07/10/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Ms Preeti Mehta, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed on the apprehension that without taking recourse provided under law, the respondents are threatening the petitioner and she might be dispossessed from the property to be more specific from parcel of land of Khasra No.404 of village Narsinghpura of which she is holding possesssion. It appears from the record that suit for permanent injunction alongwith application seeking temporary injunction U/O 39, R.1 & 2, CPC (No.286/93) was filed before Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) Beawar which appears to be for self- same land bearing Khasra No.404 – part of which is allegedly in her possession, was decided vide judgment dt.16/03/2002 (Ann.2) directing ad infra: “1) ूितवादȣगण के ǒवǾƨ तथा वादȣगण के हक मɅ इस आशय कȧ घोषणा×मक Ǒडबȧ पाǐरत कȧ जाती है Ǒक ूितवादȣ संÉया १ लगायत ४ वादȣगण को वादमःत भूिम से ǔजसमɅ उनकȧ फैÈशȣ लगी हयी है ु ǒबना इन डयू कोस[ आफ ला स¢म Ûयायालय से Ǒडबȧ हािसल Ǒकये ǒबना बेदखल नहȣ करे न Ǒकसी अÛय से CW 13182/10 //2// करावे । 2) वादȣगण के हक मɅ तथा ूितवादȣगण के ǒवǾƨ इस आशय कȧ ःथायी िनषेधा£ा जारȣ कȧ जाती है Ǒक ूितवादȣ संÉया १ लगायत ४ ǒववाǑदत भूिम खसरा नं०404 मɅ से वादȣगण के कÞजे शुदा भूिम खसरा नं० 404 मɅ से वादȣगण के कÞजे शुदा भूिम ǔजसका ǒववरण वाद पऽ कȧ चरण संÉया १ मɅ वǔण[त है से वादȣगण को ǒबना इन डयू कोस[ आफ ला स¢म Ûयायालय से Ǒडबȧ हािसल Ǒकय बेदखल नहȣं करे व उनके शांितपूव[क कÞजे उपभोग व उपयोग मɅ Ǒकसी ूकार का दखल अंदाजी नहȣं करे ।" After the decree was passed by the trial Court (supra), further action would be taken for dispossession after due process of law and taking note whereof, the SDO Beawar served notice on 18/08/2010 to which written objections were submitted by petitioner on 09/09/2010 (Ann.10). Counsel submits that apart from objections submitted on 09/09/2010, civil suit for declaration & permanent injunction has also been filed before civil court which is pending consideration. Counsel further submits that without passing any order on the notice being served and disposing of her objections, respondents are bent upon to dispossess the petitioner and she is being threatened on a number of times; and once any prejudicial action is taken against petitioner without disposing of her written objections, that may CW 13182/10 //3// cause prejudice to her. There is no documentary evidence in support of what has been urged by Counsel (supra) which may prima facie convince this Court. Suffice it to say that once suit No.286/93 has been decided by Civil Court vide judgment dt.16/03/2002 (Ann.2), it is always expected from the authority to take action only in accordance with law in terms of judgment (supra); and once notice has been served, to which written objections have been submitted by the petitioner, it is expected from the authority taking further action only after her objections being decided in accordance with law. To meet out the apprehension of petitioner, this Court would like to observe that the SDO Beawar who served notice dt.18/08/2010 will take further action only after objections to the notice being disposed of in accordance with law. With the observations (supra), writ petition stands disposed of. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/ 13182CW2010Oct7DspRp.doc