- (1.) With consent of the parties, this special appeal is heard finally at this stage.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the judgment under challenge, a further litigation in the hands of the appellants has been decided by this court. It was followed by dismissal of the Special Appeal No. 1033/2013, "Chhota Bagru Sahkari Housing Society Limited, Topdara, Ajmer v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. " vide order dated 29.10.2014. Therein, the order under challenge has also been referred. The regularisation of the land in favour of the appellants was denied, however, in reference to the circular, they were permitted to make a representation for allotment of 15% developed land. The aforesaid fact has been dealt with in the said order in Appeal No. 1033/2013. Relevant paras No.4 & 5 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:- "4.Moreover,the respondents have contended that the claim for regularisation of land, as per the appellant, is pending consideration and while saying so wrong facts have been placed before this Court. It has been submitted that the claim for regularisation had already been rejected by the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer on 28.07.2003 and thereafter, the prayer for regularisation has also been declined by the High Court, vide its judgment dated 16.09.2009 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6994/2003. In the said case, the learned Single Judge had observed that "Therefore, obviously the land of petitioners can neither be regularized, nor they can be permitted to raise residential houses in the said area. " In these circumstances, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that whoever approaches the High Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the important and material facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issue raised in the case. 5. Yet another important aspect of the matter is that the acquisation of the land in question stands finalised upto the Hon'ble Apex Court as the SLP (20448/2002) filed by the party concern had been dismissed on 14.07.2003. Moreover, other writ petitions No.9949/2011 and 10022/2011 relating to same land have been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.08.2014. "
(3.) In the light of the subsequent development referred above, learned counsel for the appellants could not raise any ground to interfere in the impugned order. It is, however, submitted that the land in dispute was purchased by the society under agreement to sell. It is further submitted that an affidavit was given by the khatedar for sale of the land to the present appellants in the other litigation. Once, the sale of land is confirmed in favour of the appellants, they should have been given consequential benefits.;