JUDGMENT 1. - Kailashpuri Vikas Samiti, the petitioner, is an Association of its members. It is an unregistered body. 2. This petition has been filed, challenging the acquisition of land for Jaipur Development Authority (respondent No. 4). Notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 19th July, 1990 and 12th March, 1992 respectively, are under challenge. 3. Petitioner has come forward with a case that the respondents No. 6 to 9 entered into an agreement for sale with regard to land of Khasra Nos. 406/701, in the year 1994 with Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited (respondent No. 5). Therefore, the said Society allotted plots in favour of as many as 113 persons who are the members of the petitioner Samiti. 4. Admittedly, there was no sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 5, so no title passed in its favour. If it did not acquire any right or title, it could not allot the land to anybody. Neither the petitioner nor its members acquired any right in the land and they are not the persons interested in challenging the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. 5. The case of the Rajasthan Housing Board (respondent No. 2) is that the respondents No. 6 to 9, who were the `Khatedars', have themselves offered the land to it for a particular Scheme. The proceedings were initiated in accordance with the Section 28(a) of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970. These proceedings are over. The award has also been made. The acquisition is final. 6. The main point to be decided is whether the writ petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. 7. A division Bench of this Court, while considering the similar matter in Special Appeal No. 12/93 (Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. v. Awasan Mandal Parijat Uncha Aayawarg Sangharsh Samiti) , alongwith five others decided on 8th August, 1995, held that the writ petition filed by self styled Society was incompetent and not maintainable as there were different causes of action to each of the allottee and the unregistered Society is not a juristic person. Relying upon the same, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed with Rs. 2000/- as costs, as the respondents have already put in appearance. Relying upon the same, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed with Rs. 2000/- as costs, as the respondents have already put in appearance. But this amount is to be paid to the Legal Aid Board within a period of two months. 9. As the writ petition has been dismissed, the interim order dated 23.6.1993 is automatically vacated. *******