ORDER : 1. this appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 23.9.1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C.W.R No. 5390 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the said learned Court dismissed a public interest litigation intiatiated at the instance of the appellant herein. 2. The appellant is a social worker. According to him, the land in question is a Government land; there existed a public well; the water of the well was being used by public at large for drinking as also for other purposes; and the 6th respondent herein allegedly encroached upon the said land and constructed a hall. 3. The High Court dismissed the writ application, inter alia, on the ground that the question as to whether the land in dispute vested in the Municipal Corporation or the same had been settled in favour of the 6th respondent by the Maharaja of Jodhpur as claimed by him, is a matter which can be resolved only by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, as the controversy can be resolved only by taking evidence which would not be possible in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the aforementioned premise, the High Court dismissed the public interest litigation with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the appellant herein. 5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the events which had occurred subsequent to the passing of the order by the High Court would clearly demonstrate that the State of Rajasthan has taken a definite stand before this Court that the land in question is a public land, but it has expressed its intention to regularise the encroachment in favour of the 6th respondent having regard to public sentiments and law and order situation. The learned counsel would submit that in terms of the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, construction on a Government land is a non-compoundable offence and in that view of the matter the State of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to regularise such construction. The learned counsel would contend that such a stand on the part of the State of Rajasthan must be deprecated and this Court should pass a suitable order. The High Court did not consider these questions at all. 6. The learned counsel would contend that such a stand on the part of the State of Rajasthan must be deprecated and this Court should pass a suitable order. The High Court did not consider these questions at all. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to it so as to enable it to consider the matter afresh on merits. 7. The parties shall be at liberty to bring the alleged subsequent events to the notice of the High Court. We may place on record that Ms. Sandhya Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan states that two suits have already been instituted in relation to the land in question. It will be open to the 1st respondent herein to bring this fact also to the notice of the High Court. The parties, it goes without saying, shall be at liberty to raise all contentions before the High Court. We are further of the opinion that keeping in view the facts that the appellant herein has raised a substantial question, the High Court was not right in imposing such. a heavy cost upon him stating that the public interest litigation filed by him was a frivolous one. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.