JUDGMENT 1. - It is submitted by the petitioner that his father Nathu son of Keshara had been residing outside the Chandpole Gate area towards Sikar House since the time of his forefathers. The locality was called as Chowkri Hawaii Shahar Garbi during the time of the erstwhile Jaipur State. It is stated that this very land after coming into force of Urban Improvement Trust Act was sold to the father of the petitioner on the concessional rate for a consideration of र 551 annas 14 and one paisa and a registered sale deed was also executed on 21.2.1956. The pakka construction was raised on the plot in question and electric & water connections were also sanctioned. The property was inherited by the legal heirs after the death of his father. The property in question was falling in the village Badodiya. 2. It is stated that in the year 1985 some application is said to have been made by Muslim Wakf Board under Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act against the mother of the petitioner Smt. Nanchi by treating her as trespasser and eviction and damages were prayed for. The application and the site plan are attached to the writ petition as Annexure-3 & 4. The notice is said to have been issued on 20.1.85 for 20.2.85 and on the same day the ex-parte proceedings were ordered. Later on vide order dated 19.4.85 (Ann.5), the exparte order of eviction was passed by respondent No.3 the Estate Officer. 3. It is the case of petitioner that the mother of petitioner was not aware of the order passed against her, she was so told by some person. She moved application immediately on 2.7.85 for obtaining the copy of the order and also filed an application for setting aside the order. The mother of petitioner had also filed an appeal as well as the application for setting aside the order. Because of the reason that initial order passed by Estate Officer was exparte, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code was also filed along with certain documents. The District Judge dismissed the appeal as barred by time as well as on merits vide order dated 10.8.87 (Ann.6). The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 19.4.85 (Ann.5) passed by Estate Officer and 10.8.87 (Ann.6) passed by District Judge. 4. The District Judge dismissed the appeal as barred by time as well as on merits vide order dated 10.8.87 (Ann.6). The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 19.4.85 (Ann.5) passed by Estate Officer and 10.8.87 (Ann.6) passed by District Judge. 4. The Estate Officer while issuing the notice for 20.2.85 for service on mother of petitioner Smt. Nanchi Devi had ordered that the notices shall be served through affixation and on receiving the report of affixation of notice on the very first day of hearing, the Estate Officer had ordered ex-parte order, and there was no representation on behalf of the occupier of the site in question. The petitioner while filing the appeal before District Judge had taken up this plea that she was not aware of the order and as soon as she acquired the knowledge of the order dated 19.4.85 on 1.7.85, she had applied for obtaining the copy of the order. She has also filed appeal on 16.7.85, which was within limitation. 5. The District Judge had also dismissed the appeal on merits. The contention was taken before the District Judge that when the disputed question of title is involved, in such situation the Estate Officer is not authorised to decide the matter and the matter should be decided by an appropriate court for establishing the title of parties. The documents were produced before the District Judge. The District Judge, even after noting the contention of parties in this regard, observed that no such documents had been produced by parties before him. However, it was observed by the District Judge/appellate authority that the petitioner had produced a sale-deed and also the map of property situated on the outskirt of Chandpole, Shamshan Road, Jaipur. However, the observations were made that the boundaries and surrounding area had not been properly mentioned. 6. In my opinion, it was a fit case where the District judge should have remanded the matter to Estate Officer for a fresh decision as to enable the parties to produce the documents in regard to title. 7. Along with the present writ petition the petitioner had produced sale-deed, map of property etc., to show that the petitioner was owner of the property in question. In writ jurisdiction the title cannot be established in this court, however, there are certain discrepancies in the proceedings of the Estate Officer, which are apparent in this case, such as: 1. 7. Along with the present writ petition the petitioner had produced sale-deed, map of property etc., to show that the petitioner was owner of the property in question. In writ jurisdiction the title cannot be established in this court, however, there are certain discrepancies in the proceedings of the Estate Officer, which are apparent in this case, such as: 1. How and why on the very first date the service was effected by pasting the notice on property and as to why the petitioner was not served through registered notice as well ? 2. In case any party is avoiding the service of notice, in that situation a procedure is provided for substituted service, and the court is to pass a proper order after satisfying itself. 3. It is not sweet will of the process server to effect the service of notice, on his own, by pasting the notice on the wall. Such report of pasting can be done only when the permission by order of the court is granted. 8. The petitioner had taken up the plea in appeal that the property in question never belonged to Wakf Board and it was personal property of petitioner. It is also the plea of petitioner that this property was purchased by petitioner from the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur. The District Judge while sitting in appeal ought to have considered this aspect of the case. In my opinion, the District Judge had failed to act in accordance with law and so did the Estate Officer by passing the impugned orders. 9. Similar circumstances were in case of (1) Gokul Vs. Raj. Muslim Wakf Board & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 713/87 decided on 8.9.1998 [reported in 1998(2) RLR 200 ] , wherein the proper notice was not served on the party and the title was claimed by the party; in such situation it was held that the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter where the question of title is involved, as has been held in case of (2) Raja Fateh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1986 RLR 966 . 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned orders annexure 5 and 6 are liable to be set aside and they are set aside. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1986 RLR 966 . 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned orders annexure 5 and 6 are liable to be set aside and they are set aside. However, in case the respondents decide to start the proceedings against the petitioner afresh, a proper notice shall be issued to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be at liberty to take all or any defences available to him including the disputed question of title before the Estate Officer which shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.With the above observations, the impugned orders are quashed and the with petition is allowed. The cost is assessed at र 1000/-.Petition Allowed *******