1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Ramesh Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5502/2008 Date of Order : : 12/08/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.Sunil Vyas, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to regularize his possession as trespasser and also challenge the order Annexure-4 dated 17th April, 2008 passed by the respondent No.2 District Collector, Jodhpur allotting the land measuring 60 X 70 mtrs. out of khasra No.1902 measuring 81 bigha for the purpose of installation of petrol pump to the respondent No.4 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularization of Agricultural Land for 2 Construction of Cinema Houses and Establishment of Petrol Pumps or Medical Facilities) Rules, 1978 (for short “the Rules of 1978”). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of the land bearing Khasra No.1902 measuring 81 bigha, the petitioner is having possession over 34 bighas of land as a trespasser and therefore, he being in long possession of land may be as trespasser, seeks a direction to the respondent to regularize his possession as a trespasser. So far as challenging the order Annexure-4 is concerned, the order is revisable under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1978. Even otherwise, the petitioner failed to show as to how he is aggrieved by the order Annesure-4. The land is recorded in the government record as a Gair Mumkin land and it has been allotted under the provisions of the Rules of 1978. It is not the case of the petitioner that the land which has been allotted to the respondent vide Annexure-4 is in the ownership of the petitioner. The petitioner having no right to claim possession over the land in question and he cannot be said to be aggrieved of such allotment. Even otherwise, if the petitioner is aggrieved against the order Annexure-4, he may pursue the remedy by way of 3 filing a revision as is provided under Rule 11 of Rules of 1978 but by this Court, no such direction can be given for Regularization of illegal possession over the government land in favour of a trespasser. In the circumstances, therefore, I find no merit in the writ petition warranting interference while invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. NK 4 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.9859/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5502/2008 Date of order : : .08.2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Sunil Vyas, for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK