Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.- These two applications have been moved by Mohan Lal and by Prem Prakash raising grievance against the separate notices given to them by Tehsildar, jointly on behalf of Railway Administration and the State Government, to remove their respective encroachments from the land in question which in the case of Prem Prakash ad-measures 4.1 meters in width in Khasra No. 688 towards Khasra No. 761/1, and in case of Mohan Lal Arora, the notice for removing the stated encroachment to the extent of 7.8 meter in width from Khasra No. 688 towards Khasra No. 725. The notices were dated 211.2005. The applicants were required to remove their encroachments on the ad-measured area within two days failing which, it was stated that possession shall be taken forcibly. 2. Both the applicants had replied to the respective notices by stating that the Railway Administration, which has earlier given notice for removal of the encroachment in the same area by letter dated 08.01.2005, has informed the applicants that they had not encroached over the railway property and, therefore, they requested the Tehsildar by separate reply to drop the proceedings. The only ground which was stated by the applicants before the Tehsildar was that since the Railway Administration had already informed them that there were no encroachment by the applicants on the Railway land in question, the notice is obviously wrong. However, no claim of any existing title of the applicants in respect of the land in question has been made in the respective replies; nor anything has been averred about the State Governments right to evict the applicants from the area in question. 3. The reference in the notice issued by the Tehsildar to order dated 111.2005 is also stated to be erroneous by applicants. 4. This needs a look into the background in which order dated 111.2005 was passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2959/1996, and the proceedings initiated by Tehsildar. 5. This writ petition was filed by the Union of India way back in 1996 pointing out that due to mining operations near the railway track from Makrana to Parabatsar, an acute problem has arisen about the safety of the existing line due to excavation of the minerals around the railway track. 5. This writ petition was filed by the Union of India way back in 1996 pointing out that due to mining operations near the railway track from Makrana to Parabatsar, an acute problem has arisen about the safety of the existing line due to excavation of the minerals around the railway track. The mining operations have gone beneath the surface and support to a big place of railway line has been used up because of loss of its ground and the railway line is hanging in the air. With this serious problem in carrying out the transport between Makrana to Parabatsar, which is an important link for passenger/transport as well as goods transport, reliefs were claimed for restraining mining operations around the railway track between Makrana to Parabatsar. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, with the negotiations and efforts of the local people an alternative solution was considered viable. The alternative solution was in substance that an alternative link line between Makrana to Parabatsar via Bidiyad shall be laid by the Railways and necessary land for such altered route may be made available to the Railways by the State Government. The estimated cost for such change was then figured at Rs. 3.58 crores, was to be borne by State. The members of Sangmarmar Khan Vikas Samiti, whose members were the mine operators in the area and were facing serious threat to their mining operations due to aforesaid situation of railway track, came forward and agreed to contribute cost of change in route. In furtherance thereof Rs. 1 crore was immediately deposited by the said Samiti. 7. In that connection, it is relevant to draw attention to the order dated 211.1998 passed by the Division Bench. In the order of the Court, Court noticed that there had been talks for settlement between the State Government and the railways which is evidenced by exchange of correspondence. By letter dated 011.1998, the State Government has suggested to the Railways that they hand over the possession of disputed land to the State Government and thereafter State Government will acquire the land indicated by the Railways for laying down the track afresh according to new alignment. The State Government has also agreed to pay Rs. 1 crore initially and then Rs. 2.58 Crores in mutually agreed instalments. The State Government has also agreed to pay Rs. 1 crore initially and then Rs. 2.58 Crores in mutually agreed instalments. In response to it, the Railway Board had written to the State Government showing its willingness to relinquish the disputed land if the State Government deposits Rs. 1,000,0000/-as first installment and gives written commitment on the amount of Rs. 2.58/-crores with agreement to bear the actual final cost in case the shifting of track costs more than the estimated cost of Rs. 3.58 crores. However, the Railways have not agreed to the suggestion that the disputed land be first handed over and then the State Government may proceed to acquire alternate land. 8. It insisted on condition that before it hands over possession and land becoming free as a result of laying alternate track with new alignment, State Government must first make available the land required for laying such new track and thereafter Railways will surrender the land. 9. With this background, the Court observed that the negotiation and settlement are in final stage but they have been struck up on two points (i) who should deliver the possession first and (ii) the liability to meet escalation in cost. 10. The Court found that these two difficulties are not insurmountable and the Railways and State Government should try to come to a settlement within a month from the date of order. 10.11. The Court further observed that "it appears to be reasonable that the disputed land is handed over only when alternative land is available for shifting of track from one place to other. It also appears to be reasonable that actual cost should be paid by the State Government and, therefore, it would only be fair on the part of State Government to agree to pay escalation in costs". 12. We are informed by the Railway as well as by the Samiti that in furtherance of above agreement about Rs. 4 crores have already been deposited by the Mine Owners Association with the Railways. The implementation of above settlement since passing of the order in 1998, again struck up around the acquisition of land for the Railway, which had passed through many phases. 4 crores have already been deposited by the Mine Owners Association with the Railways. The implementation of above settlement since passing of the order in 1998, again struck up around the acquisition of land for the Railway, which had passed through many phases. The State Government initially attempted to acquire the land earmarked by the Railway but because of resistance of local people, a number of writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings were filed, which were decided by the Division Bench vide order dated 19.02.2002. The Court found that the acquisition notification did not fulfil the basic requirement of the Land Acquisition Law and were invalid. The Court parted with two writ petitions by observing that "in prevailing circumstances at least consideration is needed to be given by the State Government whether the land which is to be made available to the Railways for laying railway line between Makrana-Parabatsar, least inconvenience is caused to the habituated area. At the same, we are conscience of the fact that because of the precarious condition existing on the Makrana-Parabatsar railway track and in the absence its early execution is causing serious public inconvenience, it is required to be implemented with immediate effect and cannot be subjected to pedantic approach". 13. Even after this order was passed on 19.02.2002 the acquisition of land was seriously delayed by the State Government for the reasons best known to them. 14. Finally after seeking the fresh approval from the Railways about the requirement of the land with certain minor adjustment and modifications for the suitable route to be laid down for the alternative track, on 08.07.2003 the notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1), 17(4) of Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the indicated lands were placed on record. These notifications did not include the land now subject matter of the two applications. The delay in making available the minimum compensation required for taking possession of the land further delayed the actual taking possession of the land. 15. While these acquisition proceedings were going on, a minor dispute relating to the problem still remained to be worked out. That was in respect of the same place of lands which is subject matter of two applications before us. 15. While these acquisition proceedings were going on, a minor dispute relating to the problem still remained to be worked out. That was in respect of the same place of lands which is subject matter of two applications before us. The Railway Administration at the relevant time, considering the land subject matter of the two notices to be part of Railway property had issued notice for removing encroachment from that land to the two applicants. Challenging the notices, the two applicants had filed civil suit and interim injunction were granted in their favour. Since, the said land which was claimed by the Railway to be their own and was subject of civil suit, was not made subject matter of the acquisition proceedings initiated for the purpose of Railways only. At the same time, the requisite land could not be utilised by the Railway Administration in implementing the settlement about laying alternate route on account of the interim orders passed by the civil Court. 16. Ultimately, the Railway Administration on re-measurement found that land in respect of which they have given notices to the applications did not fall within Railway territory, and took a stand before this Court that said land be also made available by the State Government to complete the requirement of land finally agreed to by the Railway Administration. After some dispute about the title, the Railway Administration sought permission to amend written statement in the pending suit bringing this fact to the notice of the civil Court that to the extent the land in question, now subject matter of these applications, is beyond the Railway properties and, therefore, the applicants cannot be said to have encroached over the Railways land. In furtherance of this, action by the Railway Administration, the suits became infructuous. 17. It may be noticed that Railway had only admitted that land in question was not part of Railway property. It did not admit any title vesting in occupants. 18. The Railway Administration had asserted before this Court that the land in question is part of the State land and it should make available its possession to Railways. The State authorities complained that Railway Administration has not specifically said it to be the State land though they have stated that this is not the part of their land. 18. The Railway Administration had asserted before this Court that the land in question is part of the State land and it should make available its possession to Railways. The State authorities complained that Railway Administration has not specifically said it to be the State land though they have stated that this is not the part of their land. This dispute was causing further delay in implementation of the scheme, though the work for laying down the tract has already been started over the land which was acquired by the State Government and was handed over to the Railway Administration under the directions of the Court. 19. It is, in these circumstances, stated above, considering that the Railway Administration and the authorities of State of Rajasthan were not able to solve this problem of removing the encroachment for making available the relatively small patch of land for the purpose of completing the implementation of laying down railway track between the Makrana-Parabatsar with requisite security, the order dated 111.2005 was passed directing the respondent State and Railways that if there is any doubt about their respective title over the land or about their respective jurisdiction to take action against alleged trespassers, in taking joint action against the trespassers or encroachers, there cannot be any legal impediment and the attempt by occupants to defeat the purpose by resorting to objections about title of land and jurisdiction of authorities, be thwarted. 20. It was in these circumstances, in the order dated 111.2005, referred to in the notice of the Tehsildar, observations justifying a joint action on behalf of Railway and State Government were made. 21. The common stand which has been taken before this Court in respect of the land, subject matter of the two notices, is that it was under unauthorised occupation of some other persons, therefore, giving of joint notice on the basis of stand taken by the two Government Administrations to the applicants cannot be faulted with. 22. In fact in raising objection, before the Tehsildar, the applicants have only claimed, as we have noticed above, that on the basis of admission of the Railway, that they are not trespassers over the property as per admission made by Railways. However, this does not amount to claiming their title to remain in possession of the property even qua the State. However, this does not amount to claiming their title to remain in possession of the property even qua the State. Therefore, the question of looking into the title of the applicants vis-a-vis State of Rajasthan having not been raised before the Tehsildar, did not arise for consideration for him at all. 23. With these applications also no material has been placed before us by the two applicants to support their claim to the title of the land though they asserted the same. 24. The documents on which the applicants rely and which have been placed for perusal before us now in the course of hearing, shows that if the land form part of the said document, it is liable to be reverted to the State, if it was needed for the public purpose on refund of the amount paid for allotment under grant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, subject to maximum double the amount for which allotment was made. It is specifically mentioned in that patta that if any construction is made over the land in question, no compensation shall be payable in respect of that construction. This indicates that land was meant to be kept open. In fact, it is stated that no building construction as such exist on the land in respect of which notices have been issued except boundary wall. Land is part of open land between boundary wall and building construction. This aspect has also been disputed. 25. In the aforesaid circumstance, the learned Counsel for the applicants have stated that they are ready to cooperate in implementation of scheme, which is in larger public interest. However, their rights may be appropriately safeguarded. 26. It was stated that the applicants may surrender the possession of required land vide the two notices, but the applicants title be considered by the authorities and if the applicants are able to satisfy them about their paramount title they may be suitably compensated. 27. In these circumstances, we deem it just and proper to dispose of these applications with direction that the applicants shall hand over the possession of the required land to the Tehsildar, without further objection. In case they refuse, the possession of the said land shall be taken by Tehsildar. 9.28. 27. In these circumstances, we deem it just and proper to dispose of these applications with direction that the applicants shall hand over the possession of the required land to the Tehsildar, without further objection. In case they refuse, the possession of the said land shall be taken by Tehsildar. 9.28. However, the applicants may place their claim alongwith proof of their claim to title to the land before the Collector, Nagaur or any superior officer nominated by the State Government in this regard with compensation claim for such property. It will be for the Collector or the nominated authority to consider material placed before him and then come to the conclusion that the land of which possession has been taken from the applicants whether forms the part of their title to it. If the Collector or the nominated authority, as the case may be, finds that applicants have any vested right in the land in question, he shall award appropriate compensation to be paid to them. In case the Collector does not agree with the claim of the applicants about their title, or the applicants are aggrieved with determination of compensation the applicants shall be free to resort to their remedies for declaration of the title and claim to compensation of the land in accordance with law. 29. Subject to above observations, two applications are accordingly dismissed.