JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal against refusal of grant of interim order by the learned Single Judge. The appellant has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs : (i) Quash Exhibit 26; (ii) Direct the respondents to hand over possession to the petitioner of the plots No. 21-26 and 63-64 in Sector A of 1st Extension, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur and to execute proper conveyance deed thereof; (iii) Award cost of this writ petition to the petitioner from the respondents. (iv) Give any other order or direction against the respondents which may be deemed just and proper. 3. An interim order was sought in respect of prayer (ii) for restraining the respondents from allotting the land in question to third party. 4. The appeal has arisen in the following circumstances. The very same petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition. which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.1.2000. A specific prayer which was claimed by the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition was to issue a mandamus to respondent-Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur to execute the registered lease deed of plot Nos. 21 to 26 and 63 and 64 measuring 4400 Sq. Yds. to situated in Sector 'A' 1st Extension at Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur with further ancillary reliefs. 5. This relief was specifically denied by the learned Single Judge and that part of order of learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Appeal (Writ) No. 209/2000 decided on 25.5.2000. 6. The Division Bench specifically stated as under : Having considered all the pleadings of the parties we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner has raised the disputed questions of facts which cannot be conveniently decided in the proceedings under extra-ordinary jurisdiction and such petitions are not ordinarily entertained and the parties be left to ventilate their grievances in appropriate forum. The relief claimed in the present case is very much akin to a suit for specific performance of agreement. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 7. The relief claimed in the present case is very much akin to a suit for specific performance of agreement. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 7. It is while parting with the case, the Division Bench has observed on this basis of pleadings before it that the respondents in their reply have not denied the claim of the petitioner altogether but has stated clearly that matter is receiving consideration in order to resolve dispute about land to be allotted in place of the earlier allotment made in favour of the petitioner which was cancelled. It was also observed that where right to relief is not even disputed, the respondents, who are instrumentalities of the State, are expected to act reasonably in discharge of their obligations. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the specific leave petition directing the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur to decide the case of the petitioner in the light of the observation made by the High Court. 9. In pursuance of the order impugned dated 15.2.2002, the Urban Improvement Trust decided that the petitioner is not entitled to any land as its right in respect of the land surrendered by itself was denied. The said order of Urban Improvement Trust refusing to give any land to the petitioner is subject-matter of challenging in the writ petition. 10. It is apparent that on earlier occasion the relief for grant of specific land to the petitioner was denied by the learned Single Judge. 11. In fact, the petition is primarily to challenge the denial of very right to claim alternate land in lieu of surrendered land. Such order of denial prima facie requires consideration in view of earlier judgment hence petition has been admitted. At the same time prima facie in view of earlier judgment petitioner may not been entitled to a mandamus for grant of specific plot, hence interim relief to that extent has been denied. 12. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the so order of the learned Single Judge in refusing to grant interim relief. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******