RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners claim to be Khatetar of the agricultural land measuring 4 Bighas and 13 Biswas in all comprising Khasara Nos. 516, 518, 519 and 520 in village Satpur a part of Revenue Inspectorate, Abu Road. The petitioners further alleged that 1750 Sq. Feet, of land falling in Khasara No. 516 and other measuring 572 sq. feet of land were taken on rent by petitioner No. 2 from Public Works Department Government of Rajasthan out of 2 Bighas 2 Biswas comprising Khasra No. 516. Second petitioner made a construction of restaurant for 'Dhaba' some where in 1970. The said Dhaba is alloged to have been demolished by respondents. Likewise, it is alleged that on another land 520 feet, the petitioner No.2 has constructed a shop on land adjacent to Khasara No. 516 which was taken on rent on Rs. 3/ - per month from Public Works Department.
(2.) THE rent in respect of this land not being accepted upto December 1978, the petitioner was served a notice dated 24.7.79 to the effect that he has encroached upon the land and he should vacate the same. 'This notice was given under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Another notice was given on 11.6.80 to the first petitioner informing her that her husband has encroached upon the land measuring 572 sq. ft. and she was required to give up possession of the unauthorised occupation of land in question. Yet. another notice was given to the petitioner under Sections 90A and 91 on 26.11.82. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is apparent that proceedings initiated against the petitioners and those proceedings have not been concluded, yet the respondents have interfered with this possession and demolished the construction raised on land in dispute. The petitioner contends that he was in lawful possession of the land in question and the construction thereon and he could not have been deprived of the same without due process of law. Respondents having thought that the petitioners have encroached upon the public land, initiated proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan land Revenue Act. The petitioners could have been removed from disputed land only after final orders were passed under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. But the respondent have by use of police force dispossessed the petitioner and demolished the construction raised thereon before conclusion of proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed the return to the petition wherein it is admitted by the respondents that proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was initiated against the petitioner No. 2 and to that effect, on 11.6.80 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It has not been stated in the return, nor learned Counsel for the respondent is in a position to state, whether any final order has been passed in those proceedings.;