JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for issue of a writ, order or direction restraining respondents No. 2 and 3 from executing the work in the fields of the petitioner, the details of which have been given in para 2 of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a Khatedar of 43 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land situated in village Neemoda near Canal. The petitioner has contended that the said land is ancestral of the petitioner and the petitioner is in possession as a cultivator of the land derived from ancestors. The petitioner has further contended that he has invested huge amount for the development of the said land in question. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the provisions of Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975. According to Section 20 of the said Act, the development of the land has to be entrusted to the Corporation (respondent No.2) for execution of the work and according to Section 20(2) read with the aims and objects of the Act, it is clear that in case the land of a land-holder does not require any improvement then the Corporation cannot compel him to entrust the land to them. Further the Corporation is bound to provide reasonable opportunity to the land-holders to execute the work in respect of land holdings within the period and in the manner specified by the competent authority. Reference has also been made to Section 21 and 23 of the Act which deals with the execution of the work and the powers to enter upon a land-holder. It has been contended by the petitioner in para 11 of the writ petition that on 9.5.80, the respondents had put their machinery near the petitioner's field and threatened to dispossess him. The threat was again repeated on 10th May, 1986 and on 11th May, 1986 by respondents No. 2 and 3 and hence the petitioner was left with no option but to file the present writ petition for enforcement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 21 read with Article 300-A of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Act of 1975. 3. 3. In reply, Shri Sudhir Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents have taken no steps whatsoever at any stage to dispossess the petitioner from their possession over the land in question and in absence of any threats which were implemented into any action on the part of the respondents, the respondents cannot be held liable for the same. The learned counsel has further contended that no evidence has been placed on the record with regard to the execution of any threats of dispossession. For the sake of reference reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on a communication dated 16th August, 1983, issued by the office of respondent No.2, addressed to respondent No.3, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that no development or catchment work has been undertaken by respondent No.2-Corporation over the agricultural land i.e. fields situated in Khasra No. 436 and 437. 4. It is an established proposition of law that for violation of any legal right there has to be a corresponding injury sufferred by a citizen and in absence of any such injury there cannot be any question of enforcement of fundamental right with respect to the same. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioner has not sufferred any legal injury, there cannot be any question of enforcement of the same by way of the present writ petition. On the contrary, the evidence on the record and the perusal of the documents clearly establish that the respondent No.2- Corporation has not taken any steps much less coercive steps for dispossessing the petitioner from the fields in Khasra No. 436 and 437 and therefore, no cause of action survives in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******