- (1.) AT the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant -petitioner and looking to the fact that other appeal arising out of the same common order is on Board today, this appeal has also been taken up for consideration.
(2.) THE defects pointed out by the office are taken note of and are waived. By way of this intra -court appeal, the petitioner of CWP No. 9566/2008 seeks to question the order dated 05.02.2013 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition, while granting the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal. The common order sought to be questioned in this intra - court appeal, in its entirety, reads as under: - "The petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking regularisation of land in their possession situated at village Dhoinda, Tehsil and Dist. Rajsamand. Since the petitioners have admittedly lost legal battle upto Hon'ble Supreme Court with the dismissal of SLP No. 27855/2008 on 1.12.2008 (Annex.R/2) against the order dtd. 16.9.2008 in SBCSA No. 382/2007 ­ Nana Lal and anr. V/s Municipal Board, Rajsamand, admittedly, there is no force in the present writ petition in the second round of litigation by way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Ashok Chhangani fairly submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw these writ petitions with a liberty to approach the respondent ­ Municipal Board, Rajsamand by way of appropriate representation so that authority concerned can once again look into the grievance and pass appropriate orders thereon. The learned counsel for the respondents however opposed the said request in view of litigation of petitioners having already terminated against them. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioners may file representation before the respondent ­ Municipal Board, Rajsamand within 15 days from today if he so chooses, and the respondent ­ Municipal Board may pass final orders within 15 days thereafter in accordance with law, which may be communicated to him though the Municipal Board may proceed further to dispossess the petitioners and deal with the plot of land in question according to their discretion, in accordance with the relevant Rules and enactments. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith."
(3.) UPON taking up of this matter for motion -hearing, when we posed the question to the learned counsel for the appellant as to on what ground, if at all, this intra -court appeal is sought to be maintained particularly when a prayer for withdrawal was made on behalf of the petitioner -appellant before the learned Single Judge and, in fact, such a prayer has been granted in the order impugned. The learned counsel responded with the submissions that even while granting such a prayer, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to make observations which are rather in the nature of mandatory directions, as if the respondents were bound to dispossess the petitioner; and referred to the concluding lines of the order impugned. The learned counsel however, frankly pointed out that in fact, after passing of the order dated 05.02.2013, the officers of the concerned Municipal Board proceeded to dispossess the petitioner -appellant and some proceedings for removal of boundary wall have indeed been undertaken. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the respondents have otherwise not taken any decision on the representation made by the petitioner -appellant.;