JUDGMENT 1. - Matter has come up on application filed by respondent-1 U/Art.226(3) of the Constitution of India, seeking vacation of interim orders passed in these cognate cases involving common controversy. At joint request, matter has been finally heard for being disposed of at admission stage. 2. While notices were issued in present bunch of petitions, main bone of the contentions advanced by Counsel for petitioners was that when the land belongs to the petitioners situated at village Gagwana (Ajmer), for which respondents have initiated process for dispossessing petitioners for the purposes of widening National Highway-8 (Kishangarh-Beawar) without initiating proceedings U/Ss 3A & 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. 3. After the notices were served upon respondents, reply has been filed and certain documents have been placed on record to show that the land being utilised by respondents for widnening of the road of National Highway-8 had already stood acquired by State Government after concluding acquisition proceedings having finally vested in State Government, proceedings had culminated and the acquired land was transferred to National Highway Authority. Documentary evidence has also been placed on record to show that the land regarding which the dispute has been raised by petitioners, after having finally vested with State Government stood transferred to the Ministry of Transport & National Highways and they were within their rights to use the land in question for widening of the road for National Highway-8 and there was no occasion for respondents to de-acquire the landonce it stood vested with the State Government under law. 4. Counsel for petitioners submits that if part of the land was acquired and finally vested with the authority but whole of the land which belongs to the petitioners in regard to which at no stage, acquisition proceedings were initiated but therespondents intend to dispossess the petitioners while they are in peaceful possession of the land in dispute. 5. Respondents in their reply alongwith supporting documentary evidence has placed on record, and came with a specific plea that the land in dispute has finally vested with State Government and that is only being taken note of forthe purposes of widening the road of National Highway-8. Taking note whereof, what has been contended by petitioners appears to be disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined by this Court under a limited scope of judicial review U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Taking note whereof, what has been contended by petitioners appears to be disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined by this Court under a limited scope of judicial review U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Consequently, writ petitions fail andshall stand dismissed. However, petitioners will be at liberty to avail of remedy under the law if so advised. No costs.Petition Dismissed. *******