JUDGMENT 1. -A case relating to the occupants of Kirti Nagar came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar Vikas Samiti, Punjla, Jodhpur v. U.I.T. Jodhpur, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1908 of 1985, decided on 2.11.1988 . The learned Judges have noted that counsel for Urban Improvement Trust submitted that there was a scheme under which only some of the 180 persons named in the schedule annexed with the order could be accommodated in Kirti Nagar and the Improvement Trust was prepared to allot an alternative site to those persons provided none of them possess any land or house property in any other area. Accordingly, direction was issued to the U.I.T. to allot alternative site to those persons out of 180 persons who have no other land or house in Jodhpur. The allotment was to be made within a period of six months and it was ordered that they shall not be dis-possessed or evicted till alternative site is allotted to. them. 2. Peera Ram, one of those 180 persons, his name is included in the schedule annexed to the order of the aforesaid decision, he has not been allotted alternative site. But when he was sought to be dis-possessed forcibly, lie filed a civil suit and claimed temporary injunction. Both the Courts have refused temporary injunction. This is revision of the petitioner plaintiff. 3. The learned counsel urges that the aforesaid D.b. decision was placed before appellate Court, but it was not properly appreciated or considered. He also urges that trial Court had appointed a local Commissioner and report is on record, which shows that the house of the plaintiff is in existence in which he lives along with his family members. Both the Courts below did not refer to that report. 4. The possession of the plaintiff is amply proved by virtue of the schedule annexed with the order of the D.B. Judgment and also the Local Commissioner's report. The decision of the D.B. is fully applicable to the plaintiff in this case. The Local Commissioner's report shows that alternative site had not been allotted and this fact could not be contradicted by the counsel for the U.I.T. There is a clear mandate in the order of D.B. that there will be no dis-possession or eviction until alternative site is allotted. 5. The Local Commissioner's report shows that alternative site had not been allotted and this fact could not be contradicted by the counsel for the U.I.T. There is a clear mandate in the order of D.B. that there will be no dis-possession or eviction until alternative site is allotted. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this revision is allowed. The orders of the two Courts are set aside and the application for grant of temporary injunction is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner-plaintiff shall not be dis-possessed from the house in dispute, until he is allotted alternative site, where he can built his house. Unless it is shown that he has another residential house and he is not entitled to alternative allotment.The revision stands allowed, accordingly.Revision allowed. *******