JUDGMENT 1. - Albeit the matter is listed today on an application No. 51862 dated 23.12.2010 filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, but with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and the writ petition is being decided finally. 2. By way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioners have sought the following relief: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and call for the entire record relating to the case and after examining the same, the impugned orders dated 10.4.2003 (Annex. 6) and 4.5.2010 (Annex. 8) relating to the Petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside and if this Hon'ble Court is found that this matter should be executed by the Divisional Commissioner after exercising the powers under Section 90-B(7) that may kindly be remitted to the same authority for deciding appeal of the Petitioners within appropriate time fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Contextual facts of the case depict that a suit for partition and permanent injunction under Sections 88, 53 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was filed by the Petitioners in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer-II, Jaipur against Ram Narain, Ram Prasad and others with regard to coparcenery property situated in different khata Nos., as mentioned in the plaint situated in village Keshopura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, in para No. 4 of the said plaint, it is mentioned that the disputed property was partitioned 60 years ago by forefathers of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in terms of an oral family agreement/settlement and on the basis of said oral agreement, the Plaintiffs and Defendants have khatedari rights over the land in question since the 60 years ago and had been using the same accordingly. 4. Pursuant to oral partition Following land came into power and possession of Kajod S/o Nanda : Khasra No. Rakba 257 0.12 259 0.87 260 0.60 261 0.50 246 0.62 250 0.11 251 0.22 252 0.54 330 Min. 4. Pursuant to oral partition Following land came into power and possession of Kajod S/o Nanda : Khasra No. Rakba 257 0.12 259 0.87 260 0.60 261 0.50 246 0.62 250 0.11 251 0.22 252 0.54 330 Min. 0.44 247 0.02 Likewise, the land came into power and possession of Ram Sahay S/o Bhorya is thus: Khasra No. Rakba 244 0.63 245 0.69 243 1.53 249 0.08 330 0.44 248 0.02 Following land came into power and possession of legal representatives of Ganesh : Khasra No. Rakba 229 0.07 230 0.57 231 0.16 232 0.09 233 0.01 234 0.82 331 0.91 Following land came into power and possession of legal representatives of Bhura: Khasra No. Rakba 257 0.08 270 0.08 269 1.12 256 0.03 268 1.01 258 0.44 262 0.41 263 0.59 265 0.57 266 0.01 267 0.09 324 0.21 325 0.23 326 0.08 327 0.03 328 0.43 andAfter oral partition, following land came into power and possession of legal representatives of Shyola: Khasra No. Rakba 239 0.09 240 1.36 241 0.01 242 1.80 329 1.05 399/959 ] 400/960 ] 401/965 ] 0.19 Thus, on account of oral partition, co-parcenary property stood divided among the tenants-in-common. 5. The Defendants-Respondent No. 4 to 9 initiated the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act with regard to their share of land through the answering Respondent No. 3. The Petitioners submitted their objections, which were considered by the Respondent No. 2 and the same were rejected. The Respondent No. 2, having analyzed the matter in detail, vide its order dated 10th April, 2003 resumed the land of Khasra No. 256, 258, 262, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269 and 270 in favor of JDA. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10th April, 2003, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Cum Authorised Officer, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, the Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 4th May, 2010. Hence the instant writ petition. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10th April, 2003, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Cum Authorised Officer, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, the Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 4th May, 2010. Hence the instant writ petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 took me through the revenue suit filed by the Petitioners-Plaintiff before Sub Divisional Officer (Second), Jaipur and canvassed that the Petitioners had themselves admitted in para 4 of the revenue suit that forefathers of Petitioners and Respondents No. 4 to 9 had physically partitioned the revenue land 60 years back and since then they have been in occupation and use thereof as per the partition details mentioned in para 4 of the suit itself. Learned Counsel further canvassed that the Petitioners- Plaintiff also prayed the suit of partition to be decreed in terms of the contents recorded in para 4 of the plaint. Learned Counsel also contended that no order of 90-B has been passed with regard to the land of those khasra numbers, which belonged to the Petitioners and the carved residential scheme has nothing to do with the land belonging to the Petitioners as they had already sold or transferred their own shares of land by various agreements and power of attorneys. Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioners have suppressed these material facts and made out absolutely a false case before this Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that subsequent to the order dated 10.4.2003 passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Authorized Officer, Jaipur Development Officer, much water has flown away and by efflux of time, third party rights over the property in dispute have been created as per law. The Petitioners have filed the present writ petition just with an intention to frustrate the proceedings regarding issuance of lease deed in the indraprasth Scheme. Learned Counsel strongly canvassed that once the share of the co-parceners was determined, it ceased to be the co-parceneay property. He has cited the case of Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 46 in support thereof. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in contra, has utterly failed to convince this Court that the land with regard to which 90-B has been issued belonged to the Petitioners at all. He has cited the case of Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 46 in support thereof. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in contra, has utterly failed to convince this Court that the land with regard to which 90-B has been issued belonged to the Petitioners at all. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also utterly failed to counter the argument of learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 as they had themselves admitted the partition of the land between them and the Respondents No. 4 to 9, which took place 60 years ago between their forefathers. This admitted position is found to have been suppressed by the Petitioners. 8. In the case of Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Court has observed thus: "22. For the purpose of assigning one's interest in the property, it was not necessary that partition by metes and bounds amongst the coparceners must take place. When an intention is expressed to partition the coparcenary property, the share of each of the coparceners becomes clear and ascertainable. Once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceases to be a coparcenary property. The parties in such an event would not possess the property as "joint tenants" but as "tenants-in-common. 23. Where a coparcener takes definite share in the property, he is owner of that share and as such he can alienate the same by sale or mortgage in the same manner as he can dispose of his separate property." 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that the land in question, which is sought to be claimed by way of the instant writ petition, is not in the khatedari of the Petitioners and the land, which was in the khatedari of the Petitioners, had already alienated their rights from the above land vide various agreements to sale and power of attorneys etc. The Petitioners suppressing these material facts, filed the writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereas they had no locus-standi to file the writ petition as purported khatedar of land in question. The Petitioners suppressing these material facts, filed the writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereas they had no locus-standi to file the writ petition as purported khatedar of land in question. Rather, as per the oral family settlement/arrangement, the disputed land came into the khatedari of the Respondents No. 4 to 9, who initiated the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act over their share of land through the answering Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 2, having analyzed the matter in detail, rightly, ordered that the land be resumed in favour of JDA. 10. Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act provides that if inter-alia the holder of the land either by himself or by duly authorised person makes an application, then the competent authority shall convert the land and pass an order for resumption after determination of the putting of agricultural lands to non agricultural and willingness of the holder, in the instant case, the usage of the land was already converted and no agricultural activity was being carried out for the last several years. The Petitioners seem to have filed the purported objections only to frustrate the proceedings of resumption of land which were later-on dismissed by the competent authority. 11. The Petitioners are found to have preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner assailing the order passed under Section 90-B(3) of the Land Revenue Act, but since there was no such provision in the Land Revenue Act, which provided for an appeal against the order passed under Section 90-B(3) before the Divisional Commissioner, as such the same was rightly dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 4th May, 2010. 12. It is a well settled proposition of law that it is only a person, who has an interest in the land, can challenge acquisition. When a challenge is made to an acquisition at a belated stage, then even if the court is inclined to allow such a belated challenge, it must first satisfy itself that the person challenging acquisition has title to the land. 13. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same being bereft of any merits, deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 14. 13. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same being bereft of any merits, deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 14. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application as also the application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, both, do not survive and the same stand disposed of accordingly.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******