JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 2.9.2014 passed by learned single judge of this court, in Writ Petition No.8619/2014, whereby the learned judge has dismissed the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the forefathers of the appellants were granted a land under special grant by the then ruler of Jaipur State and they were recorded as khatedar. However, in 1994 the land came to be entered as gair khatedari in the name of Mafi Mandir Shri Gopalji Maharaj. The appellants are pujaries of the said temple, and have been residing in the abadi land of khasra Nos.794 and 795 for a long time. They are in physical possession of the land in question. On 27.8.2005 the respondent No.1, the State of Rajasthan, issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants filed their objections before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, it is alleged that the said objections were not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Instead, an award was passed on 5.6.2008, and the land in question was also acquired. Against the said award, a writ petition was filed before this court, which was withdrawn later on. However, the court granted liberty to the appellants to file representation before the respondents. On 1.5.2014 a representation was duly filed before the competent authority. But, allegedly the same was not considered properly. On 30.7.2014, the respondents rejected it. The present writ petition was filed against the rejection order dated 30.7.2014. The writ petition too has been rejected. Hence, this appeal before this court. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following pleas before this court : firstly, initially, till 1994, the land in question was entered in the appellants' name. However, in 1994 the said land was registered in the revenue record in the name of the temple Mandir Shri Gopalji. Secondly, by judgment dated 24.4.2014 in a writ petition filed by the appellants, namely Writ Petition No.5661/2009, this court had directed the appellants to file a representation before the Government. Consequently, the appellants did file a representation. However, the representation was rejected by the order dated 30.7.2014. Thirdly, the appellants had filed the present Writ Petition challenging rejection of the representation. Consequently, the appellants did file a representation. However, the representation was rejected by the order dated 30.7.2014. Thirdly, the appellants had filed the present Writ Petition challenging rejection of the representation. On 2.9.2014 since the learned members of the Bar were abstaining from work, the appellant-petitioner No.1, Dwarka Prakash Swami, had appeared before the court. According to the learned counsel, appellant-petitioner No.1 could not explain the case to the court. Therefore, the learned judge has dismissed the application without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Fourthly, since the appellants are in possession of the land in dispute, they should not be evicted from the land without following the procedure established by law. Lastly it is contended that the learned judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioners do have a locus standi to file the writ petition. Hence, the reason given by the learned judge is misplaced. 4. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned judgment as well as other documents submitted along with the appeal. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated 2.9.2014 clearly reveals that the appellants are merely Pujaries of the temple. Even if prior to 1994 the land in question was entered in their name, the fact remains that after 1994 the land has been entered in the name of the temple. Moreover, a reference is pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate bearing No.16/2008 at the instance of the Murti Mandir Shri Gopalji through its trustees. Therefore, any objection that have been raised have already been projected by the temple through its trustees. Since the land belongs to the temple, the learned single judge was certainly justified in concluding that the Pujaries, i.e. the petitioners, do not have a locus standi. 6. A bare perusal of the rejection order dated 30.7.2014 clearly reveals that the Government is of the opinion that since the appellants are not in possession of the land in question, they do not have the right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Obviously, as the land has been entered in the name of the Deity, at best, it is the Deity which is in possession of the land. Thus, it is only for the Deity to raise its objections through its trustees. 7. Obviously, as the land has been entered in the name of the Deity, at best, it is the Deity which is in possession of the land. Thus, it is only for the Deity to raise its objections through its trustees. 7. Although much has been made by the learned counsel for the appellants that they continue to be in possession of the land in question, but it is indeed a settled position of law that once a Notification has been published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the possession is deemed to vest in the competent authority acquiring the land. 8. Although the learned counsel has claimed that a proper opportunity of hearing was not given to appellant No.1, but the fact remains that appellant No.1 had appeared before the learned judge. After hearing the appellant No.1 at length, after appreciating the facts of the case, after considering the legal issues involved in the case, the learned judge has passed a reasoned order. Hence, the learned counsel is unjustified in claiming that a proper opportunity of hearing was denied to the appellants. 9. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. This appeal being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application, too, stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******