Honble SHARMA, J.–Since all these three writ petitions involve similar questions of law and facts the same are being decided by this common judgment. Out of these three writ petitions; two writ petitions are filed as P.I.L. one by Komal Chand Patni and another by Dr. Arun Chaturvedi and the third writ petition filed by Jai Jawan Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti challenging the validity of Section 90-A and 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. (2). Petitioner Komal Chand Patni in his writ petition mainly prayed that the order dated 15.1.2002 issued by the Department of Urban Housing Development Department directing the Housing Co- operative Societies to surrender 200 ft. wide strip of land for institutional purpose may be quashed and set aside and the order dated 9.9.2003 issued by the Jaipur Development Authority be declared as mala fide, arbitrary and illegal. (3). Learned counsel Mr. K.K. Sharma for the petitioner Komal Chand Patni submitted that Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg from Ram Nivas Bagh to Jawahar Circle is a prominent road of Jaipur and on both sides thereof prime lands and properties situated. (4). It was further submitted that there are lands comprised in village Ramjipura developed by Jai Jawan Housing Cooperative Society Limited, Jaipur Industrial Estate Housing Cooperative Society Limited, Malviya Nagar Housing Cooperative Society Limited. One Mr. Rajendra Jain and various other persons have purchased agricultural lands vide separate registered sale deeds from the concerned khatedars for preparing housing development schemes on those lands. The Jai Jawan Housing Cooperative Society Limited prepared housing development scheme No. 3. The Jaipur Industrial Estate Housing Cooperative Society Limited prepared `Adinath Nagar Housing Development Scheme and Malviya Nagar Housing Cooperative Society Limited prepared `Panchsheel Enclave Housing Development Scheme after sub dividing the lands into various plots of different sizes. (5). The Cooperative societies allotted plots to their respective members. The aforesaid societies have left 40% land for the purpose of amenities i.e., roads, sewerage lines, parks etc. for the occupants of the Society and for the benefit of the Members of the Society. After allotment most of the respective allotees have constructed residential buildings on more than 75% of the plots and have started residing therein. (6). The grievance of the petitioner is that the existing JLN Marg was earlier 160 ft. wide and without any previous consent and approval 20 ft. After allotment most of the respective allotees have constructed residential buildings on more than 75% of the plots and have started residing therein. (6). The grievance of the petitioner is that the existing JLN Marg was earlier 160 ft. wide and without any previous consent and approval 20 ft. wide strip of land was taken over from both the sides. Thereafter, the respondents compelled to surrender 200 ft. wide strip of land from both the sides. Thus 220 ft. wide strip of land was taken over without following due process of law. (7). It is also contended that the ratio of 60:40 which is required to be maintained by the society cannot be maintained as 200 ft. wide strip of land was surrendered by the respective societies. (8). Mr. Sharma also submitted that in the surrendered deed in respect of 20 ft wide strip of land it was clearly mentioned therein that this land will be utilized as facility area and it is also contended that 200 ft. wide strip of land is not a plane land but is a several feet deep `Nala in the form of Natural Rainy Water drain which can be converted and used only as a Park/Green area as done in nearby Park known as `Mahavir Park. (9). Since aforesaid strip of land is only meant for facility which cannot be allotted to hospital and institutions and the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 3 Green Fire Hospital Private Limited on the concessional rate is per se illegal and the project report prepared by the Green Fire Hospital Private Limited to invest more than Rupees 60 crores and the allotment letter dated 9.9.2003 is challenged on the ground that the land measuring 17433 sq. yards has been allotted on the concessional rate of 60% reserved price of residential plot for 99 years lease. (10). Similarly, in the writ petition filed by Dr. Arun Chaturvedi, the petitioner also challenged the allotment of land made in favour of Green Fire Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. and submitted that Rule 15-B of the Rules of 1974 be declared ultra vires, bad in the eyes of law. (11). As in the writ petition of Shri KC Patni upon bare perusal it appears that the petitioner is pleading the cause of the societies which cannot be said to be in the public interest. (11). As in the writ petition of Shri KC Patni upon bare perusal it appears that the petitioner is pleading the cause of the societies which cannot be said to be in the public interest. As submitted by the learned counsel for the state and the JDA the allotment is made by the High Level Committee constituted under the special order and presided over by Honble the Chief Minister of State of Rajasthan consisting of 31 other members including the Secretaries to the Government Departments as also the Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and Heads of the various Departments and the decision taken by the High Level Committee cannot be questioned as held by Honble the Supreme Court in the case ``Chairman & MD BPL Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja reported in 2003(8) Supreme Court Cases 567. (12). Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Bharat Vyas has pointed out that the State has developed a policy of single window system with a view to get rid of red tapism generally prevailing in the bureaucracy and relied upon the judgment of Chairman & MD BPL Ltd. (supra), wherein Honble the Supreme Court has held as under:- ``The question as to whether any undue haste has been shown in taking an administrative decision is essentially an question of fact. The State had developed a policy of single window system with a view to get rid of red tapism generally prevailing in the bureaucracy. A decision which has been taken after due deliberations and upon due application of mind cannot be held to be suffering from malice in law on the ground that there had been undue haste on the part of the State and the Board. (13). The allotment order made by the High Power committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister was supported by the Additional Advocate General who submitted that no wrong has been committed as the hospital and the nursing training institution is in the interest of public at large. (14). In both the writ petitions the petitioners are not able to show any public cause, on the contrary they are pleading for the cause of the society. (15). In the writ petition filed by Jai Jawan Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., the petitioner society has pleaded its own cause and also challenged validity of Sections 90-A and 90-B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. (16). (15). In the writ petition filed by Jai Jawan Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., the petitioner society has pleaded its own cause and also challenged validity of Sections 90-A and 90-B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. (16). The petitioner society purchased agricultural land from different khatedars admeasuring 97 bighas approximately in the year 1970 to 1973 by registered sale deed and the land was duly mutated in the societys name. (17). The society prepared three schemes for development. The three schemes were named as Jai Jawan Scheme I, Jai Jawan Scheme II and Jai Jawan Scheme III. The petitioner society also submitted a plan to the Jaipur Development Authority for approval and same was approved vide letter dated 13.1.86. (18). The controversy arose when the JDA vide its order dated 19.1.2002, asked the society to surrender 200 feet strip of land for facilities in favour of JDA without payment of compensation and advised to get the plan sanctioned in the coming regularization camp. By another letter dated 16.3.2002, the JDA directed the society to submit plans showing 200 ft strip of land as vacant land. (19). It is not disputed that the society has furnished the revised plan and left 200 wide strip of land. The petitioners case is that under the threat that the JDA will not regularize the scheme of the society, the society has surrendered 200 wide strip of land to the JDA and the scheme of the society was regularized by the JDA. Now by way of this writ petition the petitioner challenged the provisions of Section 90-A and 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the entire scheme of Section 90-A and 90-B is that when an agricultural land is used for non agricultural purposes the person originally holding the land as well as subsequent transferees shall be deemed to be a trespasser and shall be liable to ejectment from the land in accordance with Section 91. Since the society cannot be considered as a trespasser within the meaning of Section 5(44) of the Tenancy Act, as the definition of trespasser given in Section 5(54) of the Tenancy Act is not applicable to the kind of trespasser as envisaged by Section 90-A. In fact Section 90-A creates a new category of trespasser for the purpose of taking action under Section 91. However, Section 90-B has been specially enacted which provides termination of rights, resumption of land and allotment of the same to the persons surrendering the land. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the competent officer while passing the order dated 17th April, 2002. Therefore, this present writ petition has been filed for seeking writ order or direction to declare the provisions of Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 as unconstitutional, ultra vires and consequently any action taken under the said provisions also be declared illegal and void. (20). The petitioner society also challenged the allotment made in favour of M/s. Green Fire Hospital Pvt. Ltd. (21). Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has already availed alternative efficacious remedy by filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the order dated 17.4.2002 passed by the Authorized Officer Zone-B-1, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. (22). It was also submitted that the present writ petition is simply under the garb of challenging the various provisions of Section 90-B of the Act which is not maintainable as there is no substance in challenging the validity of Section 90-B of the Act and as such this writ petition should be dismissed. (23). The maintainability of the writ petition also challenged on the ground of delay and latches in as much as in the master plan of 1998 which itself was finalized after calling objections, the land towards both sides of Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg was kept reserved for institutional purpose. (24). It was also contended that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.1.2002 and 11.12.2002 which are simply in the nature of correspondence between the petitioners and the Jaipur Development Authority. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 22.8.2003 whereby the Government has directed the Jaipur Development Authority to allot 23,633 sq. yards of land to the respondent No. 5. (25). It was also submitted that the order dated 22.8.2003 is based on circular dated 17.11.2000 and on the decision taken by the Bureau of Infrastructure Development and Investment on 5.8.2003 and the petitioners have neither challenged the circular dated 17.11.2000 nor challenged the decision dated 5.8.2003 and simply challenged the consequential order dated 22.8.2003 which cannot be challenged by the petitioner. (26). (26). The respondent No. 5 submitted an application to the Commissioner, Bureau of Investment Promotion, Government of Rajasthan and in that application he desired to establish an ultra-modern multi speciality tertiary care hospital of 200 beds in Jaipur showing the project cost approximately Rupees 60 crore and for this purpose they required land about 30000 sq. meters. (27). In all the three writ petitions since land allotted in favour of Green Fire Hospital Pvt. Ltd. is under challenge and the petitions have been filed to seek resolution of personal disputes and enmity under the camouflage of public interest litigation as held by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in 1991(1) SCC 598 wherein Honble the Supreme Court has held as under :- ``A petition under Article 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution should be taken by a person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the community. (28). Similar view has been taken in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in 2003(8) Supreme 299 wherein Honble the Supreme Court has observed as under:- ``When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. (29). Having considered the ratio decided by Honble the Supreme Court the petitioners Shri KC Patni and Dr. Arun Chaturvedi have utterly failed to show that as to how they are interested in the writ petitions and what public interest is involved and both the writ petitions cannot be said to be the public interest litigation as no element of public interest is involved in these two writ petitions. (30). The writ petition filed by Jai Jawan Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. is under the garb of challenging the vires of provisions of Section 90 A and B as the petitioner is personally interest to get back 200 ft. wide strip of land. As already discussed herein above the petitioner earlier has surrendered 200 ft. (30). The writ petition filed by Jai Jawan Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. is under the garb of challenging the vires of provisions of Section 90 A and B as the petitioner is personally interest to get back 200 ft. wide strip of land. As already discussed herein above the petitioner earlier has surrendered 200 ft. wide strip of land unconditionally and got the map approved from the JDA after getting approval of the map and plan from the JDA has filed this writ petition challenging the vires and order through which the petitioner was asked to surrender 200 ft. wide strip of land in favour of JDA on several counts. (31). Without entering into the preliminary objections whether the present petition is maintainable or not and whether the petitioner has got other alternative efficacious remedy or not; on merit aspect also, the petitioner has utterly failed to establish this fact as to how the provisions of Section 90-A and B are ultra vires and as the land has been allotted by the High Level Committee headed by the then Chief Minister including the Secretaries to the Government Departments. As also, the allotment made in favour of the Green Fire Hospital is in the public interest and same is supported by the state and JDA. (32). Consequently, all the three writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost. The interim order granted by this court shall stand vacated.