JUDGMENT 1. - Vide order dated 07/07/2008, this Court observed to dispose of matter finally at admission stage; hence at request, matter has been finally heard. 2. In instant petition, grievance of petitioner is that respondents be directed to implement decision dated 23/05/02 (Ann.1) of Local Settlement Committee duly constituted by State Government for settlement of disputes in exercise of powers U/s 78(1) read with Section 297 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 ("Act, 1959"); and respondent Nos.1 & 2 be restrained from holding any inquiry in regard to legality & validity of decision of aforesaid Committee. 3. As further alleged in the petition, Raghunath Singh Mansinghka (father of petitioner) was Khatedar tenant of land comprised in Old Khasra No. 866 measuring 27 bighas, 5 biswas, 10 biswansi - new Khasra No. 1086/1 measuring 29 bighas, 1 biswa & 26 other Khasra numbers situated in village Baral-II of erstwhile Tehsil Beawar presently in Tehsil Masuda district Ajmer. His father expired on 03/04/1973, consequently, lands of his father's khatedari were mutated through mutation No. 107 dated 05/07/87 in the name of petitioner and his brothers (Ramrichpal & Vijay Singh). But petitioner filed a suit (No. 33/89) for declaration & division of holdings against his brothers before Sub-Divisional Officer, Beawar wherein compromise decree was passed on 26/05/1989 in execution whereof, mutation No. 192 of Village Baral-II was made and consequently, lands comprised in Khasra No. 1086/1 measuring 29 bighas 1 biswa was got entered in khatedari of petitioner and since then being khatedar tenant, he continued in possession of the land (supra). 4. As alleged in the petition, in July, 1983, Municipal Board, Bijai Nagar, prepared scheme of carving out & for selling plots by auction in the name of "Nrasingh Colony" as per notices published in Newspapers. However, petitioner filed civil suit-128/83 seeking declaration & perpetual injunction before Munsif Magistrate, Beawar wherein temporary injunction was granted on 28/03/84 restraining Municipal Board, Bijai Nagar from auctioning & allotting the plots to any other person; but temporary injunction dated 28/03/84 was set aside by Additional District Judge, Beawar in appeal. However, petitioner filed fresh suit-70/87 seeking declaration, perpetual injunction and ejectment before Sub-Divisional Officer, Beawar. Matter went upto the Board of Revenue, which vide judgment dated 06/11/1998 remanded the case to revenue appellate authority, Ajmer for deciding the case afresh on merits. 5. However, petitioner filed fresh suit-70/87 seeking declaration, perpetual injunction and ejectment before Sub-Divisional Officer, Beawar. Matter went upto the Board of Revenue, which vide judgment dated 06/11/1998 remanded the case to revenue appellate authority, Ajmer for deciding the case afresh on merits. 5. At that point of time, in order to settle the disputes pending among municipal Board & other citizens, State Government in exercise of its powers U/s 78(1) read with Section 297 of the Act, 1959 constituted various settlement committees vide notification dated 30/05/2000 (Ann.9) including State level & local settlement committee. In terms of notification (Ann.9), petitioner also filed application for referring his disputes to the local settlement committee, which in its meeting held on 23/05/02 finally resolved the dispute in relation to petitioner, as referred to in para 8 whereof. According to settlement, as against claim of khatedari rights of petitioner pending & sub judice before various courts, in lieu whereof, petitioner was allotted 6292.66 sq. yds of abadi land of Khasra Nos. 434 & 435 situated in between railway line & Gaushala road, and 583.33 sq. yds of land situated between Shree Vijay Cotton Mills and Gaushala Road in compliance whereof, he deposited Rs.2,06,280/- for regularization/development charges of lands allotted in his favour in lieu of lands in his khatedari rights; and a lease deed was executed on 31/05/2002 by Chairman, Municipal Board, Bijai Nagar in his favour which was also got registered on 05/06/02. 6. However, permission was not granted for fragmentation in favour of petitioner and when he was apprised of the fact that State Government is making inquiry in regard to terms of settlement arrived at by Local settlement Committee in its meeting held on 23/05/02, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant petition seeking writ of prohibition against respondent-State for restraining them to hold inquiry and further seeking direction to execute and carry out settlement arrived at by local settlement committee to whom powers were delegated by State Government. 7. However, while issuing notices, this Court passed ad interim order dated 21/07/06 for maintaining status quo by all the parties. As regards decision dated 23/05/02 of settlement committee, as a consequence of interim order of maintaining status quo granted by this Court, State Government has failed to pass final order. 8. 7. However, while issuing notices, this Court passed ad interim order dated 21/07/06 for maintaining status quo by all the parties. As regards decision dated 23/05/02 of settlement committee, as a consequence of interim order of maintaining status quo granted by this Court, State Government has failed to pass final order. 8. Counsel for petitioner submits that the order of delegate, upon whom power is conferred, as authorised by the statute, cannot be revised or reviewed by the Principal (delegator) unless such a power of revision/review is permitted on the Principal (delegator) under law. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Commnr. Of Land Records & Settlement ( 1998(7) SCC 162 ) and OCL India Ltd v. State of Orissa ( 2003(2) SCC 101 ) . 9. Counsel further submits that State Government in exercise of its powers U/S 78(1) read with Section 297 of Act, 1959 under its notification dated 30/05/2000 constituted a committee to resolve disputes and its decision stands final and does not empower State Government in any manner to review decision of the committee at a later stage and there is no such provision available under its notification empowering State Government to hold inquiry in regard to decision of settlement committee; in such circumstances, despite petitioner having deposited requisite fee and executed lease deed & registered it with sub-registrar, terms of settlement have not been carried out by State Government or its authorities for last about nine years, which is causing prejudice to him; and that apart, State Government does not hold any competence to still inquire into the proceedings of local settlement committee & its decision. 10. Respondents in their reply inter-alia averred that petitioner in fact has misled the settlement committee by showing his possession over 29 bighas, 1 biswa of land while at site, he surrendered only 3 raqba, 883 hectare, 464013.98 sq.mtr of land out of Khasra No. 1086/1, which was entered in the name of Municipal Board Bijai Nagar and as is evident from the record, petitioner was not having possession over 27 bighas, 5 biswas 10 biswani of land prior to 23/06/05 out of new Khasra No. 1086/1, which was disputed but in respect of which, neither there was any decision taken by settlement committee nor any material on record to the effect that 7650 sq. mtrs of land of petitioner was ever illegally sold by Municipal Board Bijai Nagar. It has also been averred that complaints were received in respect of land which was adjusted in regard to the land of petitioner and the inquiry is pending before State Government. However, settlement committee gave sanction for construction of Nala at the instance of Municipal Board Bijai Nagar but in the no objection certificate issued by Railways on 02/08/04, only 4890.99 sq. mtrs of land has been mentioned in favour of petitioner whereas there was no land available for construction of Nala and it was not possible to construct it. It has also been averred that since inquiry is pending before State Government permission of fragmentation as requested by petitioner was not given. 11. Government Counsel for State submits that no orders have been passed so far and if at all there is any decision taken by State Government in violation of provision of the Act, 1959 or the notification dated 30/05/2000, it is always open for petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings; and since no prejudicial order has been passed by State or its authority under the Act, 1959 in absence whereof, very writ petition is premature and deserves to be dismissed. Government Counsel further submits that State Government certainly holds competence to examine records in terms of Section 300 of the Act, 1959. 12. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties; and with their assistance, examined material on record. Question arising for consideration especially as urged by Counsel for petitioner is that once powers have been deleted by State Government in terms of notification dated 30/05/2000 and the delegated once exercised its powers, can State Government as Principal authority under statute, holds its competence to revise or review decision of settlement committee under provisions of the Act, 1959. 13. Question arising for consideration especially as urged by Counsel for petitioner is that once powers have been deleted by State Government in terms of notification dated 30/05/2000 and the delegated once exercised its powers, can State Government as Principal authority under statute, holds its competence to revise or review decision of settlement committee under provisions of the Act, 1959. 13. State Govt constituted State level/Local settlement committees in exercise of its powers U/S 78(1) read with Section 297 of the Act, 1959 for settlement of disputes as referred to in notification dated 30/05/2000 (Ann.9), by which general instructions have also been issued further laying down powers of such settlement committee, and Cl.4 clearly postulates that State level committee is empowered to decide all kinds of disputes referred to in notification and the decision of said committee shall be final and even if matters are pending before local settlement committee, such disputes can also be summoned and decided by State level committee and Committee constituted in terms of notification dated 30/05/2000 (Ann.9) exercised its powers and took its decision which is, however, final but at the same time, this fact cannot be ruled out that State Government also holds its competence U/s 300 of the Act, 1959 to call for the records for its satisfaction and may take the decision in accordance with law. 14. However, in instant case, State Government has not passed any order which may cause prejudice to petitioner but what has been averred by respondents is that the inquiry is pending before State Government and because of interim order passed by this Court for maintaining status quo by the parties, further action could not have been initiated by State Government so far. Basic question raised by petitioner that once powers have been delegated to the Committee on being authorised by State Govt., the decision taken by Committee cannot be revised or reviewed by Principal authority (State Government), particularly no orders have been passed by State Government so far and it is always expected from the State Government/its functionaries that whatever decision will be taken that will be in accordance with provisions of the Act, 1959 and if at all the Government takes decision in contravention of provisions of the Act, that would always be available for petitioner to assail in appropriate proceedings under law and what will be the scope of powers delegated by State Government upon Committees and the question as to whether State Government still holds competence to examine records of settlement proceedings in exercise of powers U/s 300 of the Act, 1959, is certainly not available for this Court to examine in the facts of instant case particularly while pending consideration before the authority to take its decision. 15. However, this fact cannot be ruled that when settlement committee took decision on 23/05/2002 (Ann.11), it was not expected from State Government to keep the matter pending and fate of petitioner in lurch, which is certainly causing prejudice to the petitioner and at the same time, because of interim order of this Court, State Government was also restrained and the orders could not have been passed. 16. This Court considers it appropriate that respondents may take decision in regard to the decision of settlement committee dated 23/05/02 (Ann.11) expeditiously. 17. In view of aforesaid facts while State Government has yet to take decision, judgments on which Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance, are of no assistance for the grievance raised herein. 18. Consequently, writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to respondents State Government to take final decision taking note of observations (supra) within six months and communicate the same to the petitioner who if still feels aggrieved by its decision, it would be open for the petitioner to raise all objections in independent proceedings available under law. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Disposed Of. *******