JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has sought an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to:- (a) hand over vacant possession of encroached & unacquired lands as under:- (1) Khasra No. 539 3 bighas Vill. Kishanpole (2) Khasra No. 540 7 biswas Vill. Kishanpole (3) Khasra No. 541 7 biswas Vill. Kishanpole (4) Khasra No. 538 11 biswas Vill. Kishanpole (5) Khasra No. 537 15 biswas Vill. Kishanpole (6) Khasra No. 542 1 bigha & 10 biswas - do (b) pay the awarded amount to him & his family members so also compensation for Khasra No. 537 alongwith 30% as solatium over it besides interest provisionally subject to enhancement by the Civil Court on reference; (c) not to insist for production of Succession Certificate before release of payment of compensation or solatium with interest; (d) stop inquiry as to previous award of 31-7- 63 & quash all proceedings thereunder; 2. Admitted facts leading to this petition briefly stated are that Xavier D'Silva (petitioner) claims that his maternal uncle Late P. Alexender was a khatedar tenant of the lands:- (1) Khasra No. 537 9 bighas 8 biswas Gair Mumkin (2) Khasra No. 538 1 bigha 3 biswas - do - (3) Khasra No. 542 1 bigha 16 biswas - do - abadi 3. Total area whereof is 12 bighas & 8 biswas and situated in village Kishanpole within municipal area of Jaipur. Out of aforesaid land khasra No. 537, 5 bighas 3 biswas was acquired by the State Government for planned development of Amritpuri Scheme of erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur by notification D/- 31-3-1959 and 13-10-1959 u/Ss. 4 & 5 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, (for short "the Act") inasmuch as compensation for a sum of Rs. 31-257,50p, was awarded by Award D/- 31-7-1963 (Ex. 1) which was allegedly contested by P. Alexender, his brother C. Alexender & sister A. Alexender, by filing an application u/S. 18 of the Act, wherein a joint reference was made to the District Judge Jaipur City on the application of the State Government as well. The District Judge by judgment D/- 4-5- 1966 (Ex. 2) maintained the award D/- 31-7-63 of the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Jaipur. P. Alexender during the pendency of reference expired, therefore, his widow M. Alexender was substituted on record. In an appeal against Reference order, this Court by its judgment D/- 6-9-73 (Ex. The District Judge by judgment D/- 4-5- 1966 (Ex. 2) maintained the award D/- 31-7-63 of the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Jaipur. P. Alexender during the pendency of reference expired, therefore, his widow M. Alexender was substituted on record. In an appeal against Reference order, this Court by its judgment D/- 6-9-73 (Ex. 3) awarded interest from 13-10-1959 but did not award solatium and ultimately the said compensation was duly paid. 4. Similarly, second acquisition was also made by notification D/- 6-3-1969 & 7-8-1971 u/Ss. 4 & 6 of the Act out of the lands (4 bighas & 17 biswas) (1) Out of rest of land of Khasra No. 537 3 bighas 10 biswas (2) Khasra No. 538 12 biswas (3) Khasra No. 542 15 biswas 5. A dispute arose when the UIT raised objection that the land being a State grant stood resumed in 1948 under the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act and, therefore, no compensation can be given to the claimants and whereas in the records of rights, names of claimants were shown as Khatedar of the land in question for last 20 years. Accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the State Government by his order D/- 5-2-1977 (Ex. 8), whereupon the State Government in its letter D/- 1-9-1984 (Ex. 9) stated that Late Shri Alexender was not entitled to compensation in lieu of acquisition of 6 bighas & 10 biswas of land if formed part thereof; that Alexender was entitled to compensation for Khasra Nos. 538 & 542 as the SDO had taken him to be khatedar. While endorsing its copy to the Secretary JDA Jaipur it was made clear that portion of the land which is not under acquisition may be returned to the legal heirs of P. Alexender free of encroachments. 6. Ultimately, an Award (Ex. 17) had been passed by Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No. 2) on 24-9-84 for compensation of Rs. 40,820/- only in respect of land of Khasra No. 538 & 542 (acquired area) while holding Khasra No. 537 as Government land, for which no compensation was awarded, and further payment of compensation was made subject to the condition of production of succession certificate and rather an inquiry was initiated as to the compensation already taken by the petitioner's ancestors in lieu of acquisition of a part of Khasra No. 537 in previous acquisition of 1963. Against it, the petitioner moved an application for making reference u/S. 18 of the Act to the Civil Court, which too was pending with the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the petitioner approached the respondents for handing over vacant possession of the land of his family having been taken from them by the respondent No. 2 & erstwhile UIT Jaipur, but all in vain. Hence this writ petition, which was amended subsequently. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the Jagir Commissioner by his letters D/- 5-12-75, 9-9- 75 & 27-9-78 upon enquiry, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's ancestors, sent a communication to the Land Acquisition Officer that the ancestors of petitioner had no right in or over the land in question and, therefore, it be allotted to the UIT and thereupon the UIT allotted the lands to several persons, who had been allowed to construct the building without proving title over it even over the land which has not been acquired ,end belonged to the petitioner & his ancestors. Total area of land in question was 6 bighas and 4 biswas which comprises of Khasra No. 539 (3 bighas), 540 (7 biswas), 541 (7 biswas), 538 (7 biswas), 537 (15 biswas) and 542 (1 bigha) - possession whereof had been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer while it ought not to have done so despite khatedari rights in their favour as per record of rights, because these lands in dispute were never acquired. 8. It was also petitioner's case that under the Award dated 24-9-1984, no compensation was ordered for Khasra No. 537; that Rs. 40,820/- were assessed as market value of other acquired land; and payment"of compensation under Award dated (Ex. 17) was stopped; inasmuch as enquiry was initiated as to how compensation for Khasra No. 537 was granted in previous acquisition. 9. On 4-4-02 Mr. G. L. Pareek learned Advocate for the petitioner concluded his arguments in the presence of Shri Bharat Vyas and Shri Pratap Singh learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 1 respectively but none was present on behalf of the respondents on last date. A liberty was granted to both the parties to file their written submissions. But the respondents failed to file written arguments. 3 & 1 respectively but none was present on behalf of the respondents on last date. A liberty was granted to both the parties to file their written submissions. But the respondents failed to file written arguments. Hence, I have no option but to go into contents of the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in detail. 10. According to the reply, the petitioner is not the successor of P. Alexender; Khasra No. consisting of 9 bighas & 8 biswas of land stood resumed whereunder 'Matmi' was sanctioned, inasmuch as once it has been declared as property of the State Government, the petitioner has no right to claim any compensation in respect of Khasra No. 537; similarly in subsequent acquisition of rest of area of Khasra No. 537 which according to the State was Government land as is evident from the judgment d/- 8-1-1948 (Ann. R1) of the Board of Revenue, no compensation can be granted rather earlier compensation granted in respect of this Khasra No. 537 could be readjusted on acquisition of Khasra Nos. 538 & 542 consisting of 1 bigha & 7 biswas; and the fact of resumption & sanction of 'Matmi' was not brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer while passing earlier Award. The respondent JDA averred that the petitioner has not given material facts as to residential house, land appurtenant thereto and family graveyard. Much stress was laid by way of reiteration that Khasra No. 537 was already resumed by declaring it as Khalsa in the year 1948 and therefore, it was the Government land for which the petitioner could not claim any compensation, thereby the respondents being true owner of the land in dispute, such a land had correctly been allotted to other persons and that apart the respondent acquired only that much of land which was given in the Award. 11. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the rival contentions so also pleadings on record, it is an admitted fact that by way of this writ petition the petitioner has sought to assail the conclusions drawn by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the subsequent proceedings of the acquisition of the land in dispute, over which the petitioner claims his right, title and interest, which has also been denied by the respondents not only before this Court but also before the subordinate authority under the Act. 12. As regards the payment of compensation either under previous Award or subsequent one in respect of the lands of P. Alexendar, in my considered view, the only grievance of the petitioner is that this payment was made subject to the condition of production of a succession certificate. During the course of arguments it was brought to the notice that such a succession certificate has also been issued in favour of the petitioner. Hence, in my considered view, relief sought for in this regard has become infructuous. In case succession certificate is produced before the competent authority under the Act, the compensation under any of the Awards may be paid in accordance with such succession certificate if produced before it. 13. By virtue of assailing the impugned Award in second acquisition in dispute, the petitioner has admittedly not accepted it by filing a written application u/S. 18 of the Act to the Collector for determination of the Court whether his objections as to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable and the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interest. This application seeking reference u/S. 18 of the Rajasthan Act is also pending with the competent authority as is admitted by the petitioner himself in para 23 of this amended writ petition. This application seeking reference u/S. 18 of the Rajasthan Act is also pending with the competent authority as is admitted by the petitioner himself in para 23 of this amended writ petition. Thus, in my considered opinion, such objections as have been raised in this writ petition also can properly be decided by the subordinate competent authority in reference only and not in this writ petition by this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction especially in view of disputed facts as to the title or encroachment or as to seek vacant possession of the unacquired land (which has been denied by respondents) or insufficiency of compensation of the acquired land or award of interest as well as solatium, which can well be adjudicated by civil Court either on reference or in civil suit or in revenue proceedings under the Tenancy or Land Revenue laws, which alternate remedy the petitioner has (since failed to avail of. 14. Be that as it may, even if the alleged lands have not been acquired but it is admitted fact (as is admitted in the pleadings on record) that the petitioner or his ancestors have been deprived of possession over the disputed lands, may be by way of having illegally taken its possession or by allowing encroachment to the trespassers over such lands under their alleged tenancy or by illegally allotting such alleged unacquired lands to various allottees who have also admittedly carried out constructions over such alleged encroached or allotted or unacquired lands, for which the petitioner sought relief of vacant possession in this petition, but curiously enough, none of such alleged trespassers or allottees have been impleaded as parties to this writ petition and, therefore, in this view of the matter, no equitable relief can be granted to the petitioner by invoking writ jurisdiction, in their absence, appropriate remedy for such relief can be had to approach either the civil Court or revenue Court under the civil or revenue laws either for restoration of possession of unacquired land or title over such lands including Khasra No. 537 for which no compensation has been awarded holding its title in favour of the Government. These disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 15. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. These disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 15. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that in case appropriate remedy if so advised in accordance with law is availed of, then the competent forum will not influence' itself either by observations made hereinabove or by dismissal of this writ petition where under I have restrained from considering the issues raised herein on merits. Further in case the application u/S. 18 of the Rajasthan Act is pending then the competent authority is directed to decide it immediately but not later than three months from today keeping in view old pendency thereof.Petition dismissed. *******