N.C. SHARMA, J.—Petitioner Nanagi, through her civil writ petition No. 4846/1991, is invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by asserting that Ganesh had three sons named Bholu, Chhotu and Panna who were in cultivatory possession of 120 bighas 2 biswas land forming a part of the total land comprised in Khasra No. 6 and situated in village Mahapura alias Kookarkhera and that she is one of the two daughters of Bholu deceased and is holder of a general power of attorney from all the other heirs of said Bholu. (2). She refers to a letter bearing No. F. 7 (603) Rev-ka/88 dated July 30, 1970 alleged to have been sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in Revenue Department to the Cheif Conservator of Forests, Rajasthan Jaipur conveying sanction of the State Government for transferring forest land measuring 106 bighas 3 biswas of bir Mugana Mahapura situated in village Kookarkhera to the Revenue Department for the purpose of allotting the same for agricultural purpose in accordance with Rules. In the said letter, this much extent of forest land was to be in cultivatory possession of (1) Bhura son of Chhotu, (2) Deva son of Dhanna, (3) Chhotu son of Ganesh etc. The letter closed its contents by stating that now it was not necessary to await the decision of the case pending in the Court for conferment of Khatedari rights on the applicants over this land. (3). In pursuance of the order this Court dated 5.9.91, the petitioner produced certified copies of entries is Khasra Girdawari from Samvat year 2012 to 2045 as Annexure 9 to 14. Khasra Girdawari entries from 2012 to 2015 (Annexure 9) records the total area of the land under Khasra No. 2/1 as over 500 bighas. This land is recorded as forest land under the Forest Department. In various Samvat years, about 60 bighas land is shown in the cultivatory possession of Panna, Bholu, Chhotu, Soojya Gujars and Ganesh Mali. In Samvat 2016, the total cultivated area is shown as 79 bighas 19 biswas and cultivation is shown as that of three sons of Ganesh Gujar, Bhoora s/o Chhotu Gujar and Ganesh Mali. In Khasra Girdawari entry of Samvat 2018 (Annx. In Samvat 2016, the total cultivated area is shown as 79 bighas 19 biswas and cultivation is shown as that of three sons of Ganesh Gujar, Bhoora s/o Chhotu Gujar and Ganesh Mali. In Khasra Girdawari entry of Samvat 2018 (Annx. 10), total area cultivated is mentioned as 78 bighas 19 biswas, it is further mentioned that 17 bighas 10 biswas was cultivated by Panna, 18 bighas 14 biswas by Chhotu and 18 bighas by Bholu, all sons of Ganesh. An area of 9 bighas 15 biswas as cultivated by Bhura s/o Chhotu Gujar and 15 bighas by Ganesh Mali. Same reflection is made in the entry of Samvat 2019. (4). It will appear from the contents of notice dated 5.8.75 (Annx. 3) issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur District that relying on the letter of the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department dated 30.7.70, the Forest Officer, Jaipur had transferred possession of 106 bighas 2 biswas land out of the total land comprised in Khasra No. 6 to Tehsil Jaipur on 8.12.70. On 30.11.71 Tehsildar, Jaipur proposed that in view of the Government order referred to above, Khatedari rights may be recognised in favour of Bhura s/o Chhotu, Deva s/o Dhanna and Chhotu s/o Ganesh over 106 bighas 2 biswas land and the proposal was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur on 6-12-71. Consequently, Tehsildar, Jaipur opened mutation No. 67 and recorded Khatedari rights in respect of Sawai Chak (Revenue Department) land bearing Khasra No. 6/3 measuring 106 bighas 2 biswas (Banjar I) in favour of Bhura s/o Chhotu, Deva s/o Dhanna and Chhotu s/o Ganesh in equal shares and converted the classification of land as "barani Soyam" = 103 bighas 18 biswas and Ghair mumkin 2 bighas 4 biswas and rent was fixed as Rs. 62.34. (5). The Additional Collector, Jaipur was of the view that according to the orders of the Government dated 30.7.73 land was to be allotted to above named three persons in accordance with rules but the Tehsildar, Jaipur without making any enquiry as to how many persons were in cultivatory possession of the above land, submitted his proposals to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur also unauthorisedly and irregularly accorded incorrect approval leading the Tehsildar to open mutation No. 67. The Additional Collector, after perusing the Khasra Girdawari entire from Samvat 2003 to 2015 and records of Forest Department noted that apart from Bhura, Deva and Chhotu, the above land was also in possession of Panna, Bhoriya, Suja and Ganesh etc. The Additional Collector, Jaipur, therefore issued notice to Bhura, Deva and Chhotu to show cause as to why he should not make a reference under section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan for cancellation of mutation No. 67 approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It appears that Bholu son of Ganesh had also made a grievance before the Additional Collector, Jaipur that apart from Bhura, Deva and Chhotu, he was-also in cultivatory possession of the land but he was not allottedlhe land and the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer had illegally conferred Khatedari rights in favour of above named three persons only. After hearing the matter, the Additional Collector, Jaipur by his order dated Dec. 24, 1981 made the reference to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan for cancellation of mutation No. 67. The Board of Revenue decided the reference by its order dated 8.08.1989 (Annx. 5). The Board of Revenue held that the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur did not proceed in the matter correctly. They should have first, in accordance with the orders of the State Government, declared the land as land held for agricultural purposes. Mutation should have been recorded changing the land from "forest land" to Sawai chak land. Thereafter allotment of- land should have been made after following the procedure and in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purpose Rules, 1970 but all this procedure was not followed. The Board of Revenue, therefore, set aside mutation No. 67 approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 6.12.1971. (6). Reference may next be made to acquisition proceedings relating to land bearing Khasra No. 6 measuring 120 bighas 2 biswas land held by the State Government. The State Government issued notification No. 3 (6) Industry/71 dated 12-6-1972 under section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 showing its intention of acquiring the above land for setting up industries by the RIMDC. Survey of the land was conducted by Tehsildar Jaipur and he submitted his reports on 22-11-73 and 11-1-74. The State Government issued notification No. 3 (6) Industry/71 dated 12-6-1972 under section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 showing its intention of acquiring the above land for setting up industries by the RIMDC. Survey of the land was conducted by Tehsildar Jaipur and he submitted his reports on 22-11-73 and 11-1-74. After consideration the report submitted to the State Government the Government issued a declaration u/s. 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 notifying that the above land was required for a public purpose of setting up of industries by Rajasthan Industrial & Mineral Development Corporation (RIMDC). The Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur gave his award Annexure R-2/5 on 27th Aug. 1974 with respect to the compensation to be awarded to the persons interested in the land. It appears from the award Annexure R-2/5 that claims for compensation were filed by (1) Deva s/o Panna, (2) Chhotu s/o Ganesh, (3) Bhura s/o Chhotu, (4) Kamruddin s/o Munir Mohammad, (5) Faiquddin s/o Kamruddin, (6) Durga Shanker Bhawan s/o Ganga Shanker, (7) Bholu s/o Ganesh, (8) Prabhu and Narga Ram s/o Ram Chandra and (9) the President of Pratap Nagar Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Jaipur. (7). So far as Bholu s/o Ganesh is concerned, he submitted in his claim that notice pertaining to only 14 bighas of land had been given to him while he had been in continuous possession over 35 bighas of land and his house existed over two bighas of land. The Land Acquisition Officer examined the Patwari Ishwar Singh who inter-alia stated that khasra No. 6/4 measuring 14 bighas was recorded forest land and was under cultivatory possession of Bholu s/o Ganesh. He also said that Bholu was also in possession of six or seven bighas. Ved Pal Madan, Overseer, PWD had made the valuation estimates. Ex. C.12 in land acquisition proceedings was valuation of Kaccha houses of Bholu and Ex. C.13 was their rough plan. Some observations made in relation to the claim of Bholu s/o Ganesh made by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award may be extracted: "Over the recorded as forest land, objector Bholu is in possession. He has built seven "Kaccha" that had houses for his and familys use. Shri Madan has prepared estimate vide Ex.C. 12 and valued all the seven at Rs. 1669/- in case Bholu ever get any compensation he could be allowed Rs. He has built seven "Kaccha" that had houses for his and familys use. Shri Madan has prepared estimate vide Ex.C. 12 and valued all the seven at Rs. 1669/- in case Bholu ever get any compensation he could be allowed Rs. 1669/- for his seven "Kham houses for trees, I allowed Rs. 270/- to Bholu, of allowed." One of the land acquired, a portion known as Khasra No. 6/4 measuring 14 bighas is recorded as forest. But it has come in evidence that this portion has been in continuous cultivatory possession and also was in possession on the date of acquisition of objector Bholu and that he and his family members have built about 7 Kham house on it. Objector Bholu asserted that besides this portion, on other substantial portion of this land he has been in possession and that because of mischeif of revenue officials, his name could not be recorded in revenue records and that the Tehsildar Jaipur has submitted a report to Collector, Jaipur for granting him Khatedari right. I have considered this matter. Though it seems correct that objector Bholu has been in continuous possession over 14 bighas of land recorded as forest land and has been cultivating it but the Land Acquisition Officer cannot go into the title of the individual and as to depend on the record. Objector Bholu must have moved a competent court long back to vindicate his right and get the entries corrected. It is settled law that the compensation has to be awarded in accordance with the title of each land holds in the joint land acquired irrespective of the fact whether they were in actual possession of more or less area on the date of acquisition. As for possession of objector Bholu Ex. 3 prepared by Shri Sant Kumar is clear, which says that he was found in possession over 14 bighas of land whch is recorded as forest land. In case Khatedari rights are conferred on objector Bholu with retrospective effect by the Collector or by some competent court, he would be entitled to get compensation at the rate decided by me for 14 bighas of land otherwise it being the forest land it could be transferred to RIMDC without any payment. If by competent order, Bholu would be found eligible to get compensation for this land, he would be entitled to get Rs. 370/- for trees. If by competent order, Bholu would be found eligible to get compensation for this land, he would be entitled to get Rs. 370/- for trees. He has built seven Kham houses over this land. At present his status is that of a trespasser, yet it will be very hard on him to disallow the cost of his thatched houses that comes to Rs. 1669/- In case he is not found entitled to this land, he will be allowed to remove the malba of these Kachha houses. Objector Bholu is an old and illiterate person. It seems readily heart rending to deprive him of his livelihood and house in view of the record. I am unable to allow any compensation to him. It would be better if the decision on the report of Tehsildar, Jaipur for conferring of Khatedari rights to him was considered early. In case of Bholu, if Khatedari is given to him on 14 bighas of land recorded as forest retrospectively or he get to its title from a competent court, then he will get compensation of land @ Rs. 3750/- per bigha and would be entitled for compensation of his Kachha houses, dala, trees etc. as described above, otherwise he is entitled to remove malba etc. of his house. In this case, Government may be requested to transfer 14 bighas of this land to RIMDC it being forest land on terms and conditions to be decided by it. The objector have requested that for their settlement plots in Industrial area may be allotted to them. There is no doubt that the claimants have been dislocated because of this acquisition and they shall have to seek new vocations and shift to other places. On humanitarian grounds, it shall be proper for RIMDC to allot industrial plots in their estate to some of them as would like to set up the industrial. (8). This was the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur in relation to Bholu s/o Ganesh. Bholu made an application on 8-10-74 (Annex. R.2/6) to the Collector, Jaipur to make a reference to the Civil Court u/s. 18 of the Acquisition Act. The reference case No. 2 of 1975 came before the Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District. The Land Acquisition Officer and RIMDC filed reply Annexure R-2/7 before the Civil Judge. Bholu made an application on 8-10-74 (Annex. R.2/6) to the Collector, Jaipur to make a reference to the Civil Court u/s. 18 of the Acquisition Act. The reference case No. 2 of 1975 came before the Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District. The Land Acquisition Officer and RIMDC filed reply Annexure R-2/7 before the Civil Judge. However, it appears from the order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur District dated 16-11-78 that reference u/s. 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was dismissed in default of appearance from the side of Bholu s/o Ganesh on that date. It may be mentioned here that Bholu had expired on 16-5-77 and an application Annexure R-2/9 was made on behalf of the legal representatives of Bholu (including the present petitioner) for substitution before the Civil Judge. That is one aspect of the matter. (9). The other litigation was that sons and grandsons of Bholu filed a revenue suit against Deva, Bhura, Ram Sahai, Kalu, RIMDC and State of Rajasthan u/ss. 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for a declaration that they are Khatedari tenants in land comprised in Khasra No. 6/5 (measuring 15 bighas), No. 6/7 (measuring 2 bighas 10 bigswas), 6/3 (measuring 2 biswas) and No. 7/7 (measuring 14 bighas) out of the total land comprised in Khasra No. 5 and for a permanent injunction against RIMDC restraining it from dispossessing the said plaintiffs from the said agricultural land till the plaintiffs were paid acquisition compensation by it. Prior to the aforesaid revenue suit, Bholu had also filed a civil suit against RIMDC on 8-7-75. In that civil suit Bholu had filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for restraining RIMDC from dispossessing him from land measuring 32 bighas 10 biswas in his possession. The civil suit filed by Bholu was dismissed in default on 8.10.82. (10). In the aforesaid revenue suit, the heirs of Bholu had filed an application for temporary injunction on 27-2-91 for restraining RIMDC from dispossessing them. That application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur on 30-7-91 and the exparte interim injunction granted on 4-3-91 was vacated. Ramnath and other filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (II), Jaipur but the same was dismissed on 30-8-91 by Annexure R-2/6. They have filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. (11). That application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur on 30-7-91 and the exparte interim injunction granted on 4-3-91 was vacated. Ramnath and other filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (II), Jaipur but the same was dismissed on 30-8-91 by Annexure R-2/6. They have filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. (11). Leaving everything else apart, Mr. C.K. Garg appearing for the petitioner strongly relied upon paras 4 and 17 of the reply of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO). RIICO stated in para 4 of its reply: "As a matter of fact, the father and predecessor in title of the petitioner was dispossessed from the disputed land on 7-6-74, after the publication of the notification u/s. 6 read with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and the said land has vested in the State of Rajasthan free from all encumberances. .....However, thereafter the father and legal heirs had trespassed on the part of the said land and came in unauthorised possession and occupation of the part of the land for some time, though the land had vested in the State and the possession of the same had already been given to the answering respondent No. 2. The unauthorised possession of the petitioner and other legal heirs on small portion of the disputed land which included some kutccha huts were also removed by the concerned authority of the State on 8.08.1991. The Photostat Copy of the Roznamcha report of Police Station, Vish-wakarma, Jaipur City of 8-8-91 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure R-2/18." (12). The same statement was repeated by RIICO in para 17 of its reply: "17 Annexure R-2/18 is the report of Shri Sampat Ram Vyas SHO, Police Station Vishwakarma dated 8-8-91 recorded in Roznamch Aam of the Police Station. In this report, it was recorded that SDO Jaipur City along with Patwari of the circle came to the Police Station and asked for police assistance to hand over possession of the land to RIICO. The SHO apprised of this request to the S.P., Jaipur and after obtaining the order of the S.P., the S.H.O. along with Mahadev Prashad S.I., Ram Sahai, A.S.I. and some constables went along with S.D.O. and got the possession of the land handed over to RIICO officials. The SHO apprised of this request to the S.P., Jaipur and after obtaining the order of the S.P., the S.H.O. along with Mahadev Prashad S.I., Ram Sahai, A.S.I. and some constables went along with S.D.O. and got the possession of the land handed over to RIICO officials. Ram Nath Gujar etc., who were living in huts there, removed their goods in a camel-cart from the huts." (13). The present writ petition was filed by Nanagi on August 29,1991. In para 22 of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that at the moment she was concerned with the land acquisition proceedings and the consequent attempts on the part of the RIICO to dispossess her own land with the aid and help of the police authorities and police power, which it cannot do. If it wants to proceed for dispossessing the petitioner from the lands in question recourse has to be taken to the various provisions as have been provided for in the Rajasthan Land Acquisitions Act, 1894 as amended in 1987. (14). It may here be stated that in the stay application No. 3971 of 1991 filed along with the writ petition, this Court had passed an interim order on 3-9-91, it was ordered that till 5-9-91, the petitioner Smt. Nanagi be not dispossessed in her possession in relation to lands bearing khasra No. 6/5 (16 bighas), 6/6 (14 bighas) and 6/7 (2 bighas 10 biswas) situated in village Mahapura. (15). Learned counsel for the petitioner developed a new arguments that even if the case of RIICO is accepted that the petitioners father had been dispossessed from the land on 7-6-74 after the acquisition of the land was completed, the RIICO had admitted in paras 4 and 17 of its reply that after his dispossession, the father and legal heirs had trespassed on part of the said land and came in unauthorised possession as trespasser. The counsel argued that if that was so, then the RIICO had no right to dispossess the petitioner and legal heirs of Bholu by a high handed manner through the aid of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur and the police and the only remedy available before RIICO was to take recourse to modes permitted by law for suing the petitioner and legal heirs for possession and seeking their ejectment under Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and thus the petitioner is entitled to the grant of a writ against the respondents restraining them from dispossessing the petitioner and other legal heirs of Bholu save by due process of law. (16). The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner at first sight may seem attractive, but it has no substance in it to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Entire agricultural land comprised in Khasra No. 6 was even according to Khasra Girdawari entries produced by the petitioner was recorded as forest land placed under the control of the forest department. Might be that in of Panna, Bholu, Chhotu, Soojya Gujars and Ganesh Mali in Khasra girdawari. The status of these persons was nothing better than trespassers. The letter bearing No. F. 7 (603) Rev-ka/88 dated July 30,1970 did not expressly mention the name of Bholu in it. The word etcetra in it might convey that the names expressly mentioned in it were not exhaustive. The Additional Collector, Jaipur made a reference to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan for cancellation of mutation No. 67 approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur. Mutation No. 67 had not been sanctioned in favour of Bholu in respect of Bholu for any part of the land. It was approved in favour of Bhura s/o Chhotu, Deva s/o Dhanna and Chhotu s/o Ganesh in respect of 106 bighas 2 biswas land in equal shares. Bholu s/o Ganesh had made a complaint to the Additional Collector that mutation should have also been opened and recorded in his favour along with the above named three persons. Bholu was also a party in reference proceedings and on his death his legal representatives were impleaded. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 8-8-89 held the proceedings for mutation to be illegal and further held that the allotment of land was not made to any of these persons in accordance with relevant rules. Bholu was also a party in reference proceedings and on his death his legal representatives were impleaded. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 8-8-89 held the proceedings for mutation to be illegal and further held that the allotment of land was not made to any of these persons in accordance with relevant rules. The mutation was quashed in its entirety. Thus neither Bholu nor any of the above three persons ever became Khatedar or Ghair Khatedar tenants of the agricultural land measuring 106 bighas 2 biswas out of the total land comprised in Khasra No. 6. (17). The judgment of the Board of Revenue was delivered must later to the completion of the acquisition proceedings. In the acquisition proceedings, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer treated Deva s/o Panna, Bhura s/o Chhotu, Chhotu s/o Ganesh , vendees Kamruddin and Faiziyyaddin, on the basis of mutation No. 67 and transfers, as persons interested in various areas of land and awarded compensation to them. However, so far as Bholu was concerned, although he was found to be in continuous possession of 14 bighas of forest land but he was held not entitled to any compensation. He was held not to be interested in land because Khatedari rights had not been ever conferred upon him over the land and his claim was left to depend upon conferment of Khatedari rights on him with retrospective effect by the Collector or by any competent Court. This interest in land was at no point of time acquired by or conferred upon Bholu or his heirs at any time and at any stage. On the other hand, it stood negatived. The Revenue Board quashed mutation No. 67 in respect of entire 106 bighas 2 biswas land. Reference made to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act at the instance of Bholu stood dismissed in default of appearance from the side of Bholu or his heirs on 16-11-78 (Vide Annexure R- 2/7). The revenue suit filed by sons and grandsons of Bholu against the State of Rajasthan and RIMDC under sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for declaring of Khatedari rights could not be shown to have yielded results. The revenue suit filed by sons and grandsons of Bholu against the State of Rajasthan and RIMDC under sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for declaring of Khatedari rights could not be shown to have yielded results. Their application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur on 30-7-91 and the appeal filed by them was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (II), Jaipur on 30-8-91 by Annexure R-2/6. Result of their revision before the Board of Revenue has not so far arrived. The earlier civil suit filed by Bholu against RIMDC on 8-7-75 stood dismissed in default on 8-10-82. (18). So far as acquisition proceedings are concerned, they started some time on 12-6-72 by issue of notification u/s. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The award was made on 27.08.1974. Reference u/s. 18 of the said Act was dismissed in default. How can the petitioner be allowed to challenge the acquisition proceedings after a lapse of 17 to 19 years by this court (see the decisions reported in AIR 1974 SC 2077 para 11 (1) and AIR 1975 SC 2190 (2). Annexure R-2/4 would go to show that possession of land measuring 120 bighas 2 biswas out of land of Khasra No.6 in pursuance of two acquisition had already been taken on 2-7-1974 by the State and the land acquired was handed over to RIMDC. Bholu s/o Ganesh had participated in acquisition proceedings way back in the year 1974 and he did not challenge the acquisition before this Court for 17 long years. His efferts in seeking conferment of Khatedari have till date have not succeeded any where. Mutation No. 67 stood quashed, reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act stood dismissed in default and so also the civil suit. His application for temporary injunction in revenue suit failed up to he Revenue Appellate Authority and till the filing of the present writ petition, his interest in the land acquired has no where crystallised. Mutation No. 67 stood quashed, reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act stood dismissed in default and so also the civil suit. His application for temporary injunction in revenue suit failed up to he Revenue Appellate Authority and till the filing of the present writ petition, his interest in the land acquired has no where crystallised. Why this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition filed on 29-8-91,to quash land acquisition proceedings concluded in the year 1974 and to restore possession of the land to the petitioner who was initially dispossessed on 2-7-1974 and dispossessed from Kham houses on 8-8-91 i.e. before the filing of the present writ petition even if that dispossession was in a high handed manner by the Sub-Divisional Officer with the aid of the police. (19). The petitioner has misrepresented before this Court that the predecessor i.e. Bholu was not heard in land acquisition proceedings. The award itself goes to show that the claim of Bholu was adequately considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Bholu even initiated proceedings u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference to the civil court and the reference was dismissed for default of appearance of his legal representative. (20). Petitioners revenue suit for conferment of Khatedari rights, though filed but was suppressed to be narrated in the Writ Petition and his revision against refusal to grant temporary injunction is pending in the Board of Revenue. The petitioner can claim all the requisite reliefs, which she seeks in this writ petition, in the revenue suit which covers his comprehensive claim for conferment of Khatedari rights over the land in question. On the ultimate success of the revenue suit entitlement of compensation quantified in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 27.08.1974 would automatically follow. As already observed such belated challenge to acquisition proceedings cannot be entertained. (21). On the ultimate success of the revenue suit entitlement of compensation quantified in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 27.08.1974 would automatically follow. As already observed such belated challenge to acquisition proceedings cannot be entertained. (21). In view of the above discussion, this Court, does not at all hold this case to be a fit case for exercise of its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case which till date has no legs to stand and which is still being litigated in revenue courts, when the award amply protects the right to get compensation on the success of the petitioner in obtaining Khatedari rights and in favour of a person who stood dispossessed before the filing of the writ petition at any rate and in any event. (22). The writ petition, is therefore, dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs.