Honble SHETHNA, J.–This is a joint petition of 1985 filed by the petitioners challenging the acquisition. Three petitioners No.3 to 5 Mohan Puri, Prakash Puri and Ramesh Puri have later on stated that they do not want to prosecute the petition which is their with reply affidavit of other side. Preliminary objection was raised by Shri Lodha for the respondent Municipal Board that such a joint petition is not maintainable particularly when out of several petitioners three petitioners have expressed their desire not to prosecute the petition. He further submitted that the land which was not included in the notification for that land also stay was obtained by the petitioners. Not only that under the order of status quo the land in question was let out by the petitioners. Thus, on this preliminary objection this petition should be dismissed. (2). There is an amendment application which is filed almost after 13 years by the petitioners challenging the notification issued under Sec.4 and 6 on the ground that both the notifications were simultaneously issued. Such permission cannot be granted after so many years. Similar other objections were raised by the learned counsel Shri K.N.Joshi for the respondent state which was raised by Mr. Lodha for the Municipal Board. Both the learned Counsel Shri Lodha for the Municipal Board and Shri Joshi for the State submitted that the land in question was acquired for constructing town hall in Chittorgarh but due to stay order the same could not be constructed till today and there is no other suitable land,therefore, this petition be dismissed. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the preliminary objections raised by the respondents are frivolous, therefore, they should be dismissed and the Court should decide the matter on merits. (4). I am afraid, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted because there is lot of force and substance in the preliminary objections raised by the other side. The lands were different and cause of action was different qua against each of petitioners. Out of several petitioners when three petitioners, later on, expressed their desire not to prosecute the petition then in my opinion such a joint petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. The lands were different and cause of action was different qua against each of petitioners. Out of several petitioners when three petitioners, later on, expressed their desire not to prosecute the petition then in my opinion such a joint petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. The fact that the land was not included in the notification has also been stayed and that the order of status qua was mis-used by the petitioners by letting out the land during the pendency of the petition is sufficient to dismiss the petition. (5). In view of the above of the discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed without going into the merits of the case on the aforesaid preliminary objections. Stay granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. Stay petition is also dismissed.