JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed assailing the order passed by Jaipur Development Authority dated 31.07.2009 on application filed by the recorded tenant U/s 90B(3) of the Raj. Land Revenue Act,1956 ("Act,1956"). 2. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the applicant Sajna Devi w/o Bheru Lal by caste Gurjar was recorded tenant of the subject land in question for which she submitted application U/s 90B (3) of the Act,1956 for conversion of subject land and order came to be passed by the Tribunal on 31.07.2009. It has been observed by the authority in its order that after the application was submitted by the recorded tenant U/s 90B(3) of the Act,1956 notice inviting objections was published in daily newspapers on 24.07.2009 but no objections were received in reference to the application filed by the recorded tenant seeking permission of the authority U/s 90B(3) of the Act,1956. 3. Counsel submits that petitioner purchased the subject land by agreement to sale and suit for specific performance is pending adjudication before the competent civil court, however, this fact did not came to his knowledge that notice inviting objections regarding subject land in question was published in daily newspapers of which reference has been made by the authority in its order dated 31.07.2009. 4. Counsel further submits that the ultimate facts remains is that suit for specific performance for the subject land in question is still pending and the order passed by the authority impugned dated 31.07.2009 may cause prejudice to the petitioner in the pending suit. 5. It has been also informed to this Court that the applicant Sajna Devi who is respondent-3 in the instant petition is also a party in the pending suit before the civil court for specific performance. 6. The applicant Sajna Devi being recorded tenant submitted application U/s 90B(3) of the Act,1956 and the authority after inviting objections by public notice of which reference has been in the order impugned proceeded further and order came to be passed on 31.07.2009. 7. However, so far as submission made by counsel regarding suit being filed in reference to subject land for specific performance is concerned, he is always at liberty to raise objections which are admissible to him under law regarding the order passed by the authority dated 31.07.2009. 7. However, so far as submission made by counsel regarding suit being filed in reference to subject land for specific performance is concerned, he is always at liberty to raise objections which are admissible to him under law regarding the order passed by the authority dated 31.07.2009. However, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the authority in passing of the order impugned passed on the application filed by the recorded tenant of the subject land in question U/s 90B(3) of the Act,1956, which may require interference. 8. Consequently, the petition is without substance and the same is accordingly dismissed however with liberty (supra).Petition dismissed. *******