1 19 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.205/2005. Suresh Kumar Bohra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 17th October 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI None present. BY THE COURT: The matter has been called out twice over but nobody has appeared for the petitioner. Earlier also, nobody was present for the petitioner on 29.07.2008 and yet the matter was adjourned for four weeks. Thereafter, the matter came up before the Court on 23.09.2008 and was called out twice over but no one appeared for the petitioner on that date either. However, by way of further indulgence, a last opportunity was extended if someone would choose to make submissions for the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to be taken up today. Today also, despite the matter having been called out twice over and despite waiting for appearance for sufficiently long time, when there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, it is considered appropriate to examine the merits of the case. Having perused the record, the averments as taken in the writ petition, and the reply submissions on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 2 The petitioner seeks to submit that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 sold the land in dispute to him by way of agreement for sale dated 04.01.2002. It is submitted that the land in question was acquired on 02.11.2002 and the petitioner, alleging himself to be a bona fide purchaser, submitted his claim application before the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the petitioner, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 also filed an application for compensation in the said acquisition proceedings and though the petitioner made a request for not releasing of the amount to the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 but the officers of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 took no notice of his request and informed that they would be releasing the amount in favour of the respondents No. 5 and 6. According to the petitioner, he got served a legal notice on the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and then, also moved an application on 25.10.2004 and further moved an application, purportedly under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the Collector, Jodhpur for referring the dispute but no action was taken thereupon. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for the reliefs in this writ petition that the Collector may be directed to refer the dispute as to who is entitled to receive the amount of compensation awarded for the land in question; that the petitioner may be held entitled to such compensation or the same may be adjudicated upon by the Collector; and disbursement of the amount of compensation pending the 3 decision be stayed. The petitioner has also taken the averments that being left with no remedy ‘to protect his legal rights mentioned in the sale agreement dated 04.01.2002, he filed a suit for specific performance of his right and title over the disputed property and for recovery of compensation’; that the Trial Court proceeded to reject his application for temporary injunction application on 06.11.2002; and that he has filed a miscellaneous appeal to this Court. A show cause notice was issued in this writ petition on 09.02.2005 without any interim order. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4; and with reference to the averments of the petitioner it is submitted that when he has filed a civil suit for specific performance along with temporary injunction that was rejected by the learned Trial Court and a miscellaneous appeal has been preferred before this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the petitioner derives no right on the basis of the alleged agreement for sale; that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 being the persons belonging to a Scheduled Caste, the petitioner could not have purchased their agricultural land; and that the application was not made by the petitioner to the competent authority. Without going into any other aspect of the matter, it is ex facie evident that the petitioner seeks to claim his rights qua 4 the property in dispute on the basis of an alleged agreement for sale and it is also borne out from the copy of the plaint as produced with the reply that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration that he was entitled to receive the compensation and has also prayed for consequential reliefs. In the face of the remedy of the civil suit having been resorted to by the petitioner in relation to the very subject matter of this writ petition, this Court finds no reason or ground to consider any interference in the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the rights sought to be claimed by the petitioner are obviously dependent upon determination of the serious disputed questions of fact and it cannot be said that the petitioner has any existing legal right in the matter wherefor a writ would be issued by this Court. For the reasons aforesaid, the petitioner being not entitled to any relief in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, this writ petition deserves to be, and is, hereby dismissed. However, for the facts noticed, in the interest of justice, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not by itself be of any prejudice in relation to the other proceedings. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/