JUDGMENT 1. - This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2011 as passed in CWP No. 5089/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner-appellant to the alternative remedy of an appeal before the DIG (Stamps). 2. Though this appeal has been filed on several grounds but at the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that another intra-court appeal, being SAW No.41/2012, filed against an order of the even date, i.e., 14.12.2011, as passed in CWP No.5182/2009 and involving similar and akin issues, has been considered and decided by a coordinate bench on 25.01.2012; and, essentially for the reason that vires of Rule 24(i) of the Rajasthan Land Tax Rules, 2006 were in challenge in the writ petition, the Division Bench was of the view that the matter was required to be heard by a Division Bench pursuant to the order dated 28.02.2011 whereby it has been directed that the matters pertaining to vires of any Act, Statute, any Order, Rules and Regulations made under any Act are to be heard by the Division Bench. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed for perusal the order dated 25.01.2012 as passed in SAW No.41/2012 wherefrom it is noticed that the coordinate bench has allowed the appeal for the reason aforesaid and has restored the writ petition to its number for being listed for consideration before the Division Bench in accordance with law. 4. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed for perusal the order dated 25.01.2012 as passed in SAW No.41/2012 wherefrom it is noticed that the coordinate bench has allowed the appeal for the reason aforesaid and has restored the writ petition to its number for being listed for consideration before the Division Bench in accordance with law. 4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order as passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from lack of jurisdiction to which we have expressed our reservations including the one that the appellant himself had been the writ petitioner and it was for the petitioner-appellant to make the relevant submissions before the learned Single Judge while the matter was heard but then, we refrain from making any other comment in the matter as it has been brought to our notice that a coordinate bench has already set aside the similar nature order passed by the learned Single Judge and has restored the writ petition for consideration by Division Bench while noticing another feature that several other writ petitions involving constitutional validity of Rule 24(i) ibid are already pending before the Division Bench and hence, in order to maintain the judicial propriety and to maintain consistency in passing the orders in identical matters, all the matters are required to be grouped for hearing before the Division Bench. 5. In the given set of facts and circumstances, we have requested Mr. R.L. Jangid, the learned Additional Advocate General to take notice in this matter as he has already appeared in SAW No.41/2012. A copy of the memo of appeal has been supplied to the learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Bhati, assisting the Additional Advocate General. Mr. Jangid also candidly submits that the order as passed in SAW No. 41/2012 essentially covers the matter as at present. 6. In view of what has been discussed above, following the decision in SAW No.41/2012 : M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Rajathan & Ors ., this appeal is allowed to the extent and in the manner that while setting aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2011, the writ petition (CWP No.5089/2010) is restored to its number. The said writ petition shall now be listed before the appropriate Division Bench for hearing in accordance with law alongwith cognate matters. No costs.Appeal Allowed. *******