JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties including learned counsel appearing for the Jaipur Development Authority. 2 Three connected writ petitions i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.7294/2003, 6343/2003 and 6040/2003, were decided by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 16.09.2005. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6040/2003, was disposed of with the following order:- “The writ petition filed by Jai Jawan Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. is under the garb of challenging the vires of provisions of Section 90A and B as the petitioner is personally interest to get back 200 ft. wide strip of land. As already discussed herein above the petitioner earlier has surrendered 200 ft. wide strip of land unconditionally and got the map approved from the JDA after getting approval of the map and plan from the JDA has filed this writ petition challenging the vires and order through which the petitioner was asked to surrender 200 ft. wide strip of land in favour of JDA on several counts. Without entering into the preliminary objections whether the present petition is maintainable or not and whether the petitioner has got other alternative efficacious remedy or not; on merit aspect also, the petitioner has utterly failed to establish this fact as to how the provisions of Section 90A and B are ultra vires and as the land has been allotted by the High Level Committee headed by the then Chief Minister including the Secretaries to the Government Department. As also, the allotment made in favour of the Green Fire Hospital is in the public interest and same is supported by the State and JDA.” 3. Th Jai Jawan Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Another, had filed a Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.2147/2006, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.1890/2007. The Civil Appeal was heard and disposed of on 10.04.2007, with directions that so far as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6040/2003 is concerned, it is restored to the file of the High Court, on the ground that since the vires of Section 90A and 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956'), can not be decided by the Divisional Commissioner in an appeal, the High Court ought to have considered the challenge. The Supreme Court held that the observation of the High Court that the writ-petitioners failed to establish as to how the provisions of Section 90A and B are ultra vires of the Constitution, was without any discussion. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court remanded D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6040/2003, back to the High Court for a fresh decision, after examining all the contentions raised, which would meet the ends of justice. 4. So far as Civil Appeal against two other connected writ petitions is concerned, the Supreme Court dismissed them confirming the dismissal order of the High Court. 5. Today, when the matter was taken up, Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Jai Jawan Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., made a statement that the petitioner does not want to challenge the vires of Section 90A and B of the Act of 1956. He has withdrawn the challenge to the validity of Section 90A and B of the Act of 1956. He thereafter made a prayer that the petitioner may be allowed to pursue the remedies against the order dated 17.04.2002, and other reliefs before an appropriate forum. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the prayer is misconceived, inasmuch as the appeal, filed by the petitioner, pending before the Divisional Commissioner, has since been withdrawn, and further after the challenge to vires of Section 90A and B of the Act of 1956 is not pressed, nothing further survives, to be decided in the writ petition. He submits that in view of the statement given by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition should be dismissed. 7. The land in dispute was the Khatedari land of the Jai Jawan Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (a Society), which was acquired by the State Government, but considering that the land would not be required by the State Government, the land was denotified under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was thereafter subject to proceedings under Section 90B of the Act of 1956. Prior to the acceptance of surrender of the land and allotment under Section 90B, the Society sold the plots after sanction of the layout plan by the JDA, leaving a small portion of land, which was shown in the layout plan, as commercial land. 8. Prior to the acceptance of surrender of the land and allotment under Section 90B, the Society sold the plots after sanction of the layout plan by the JDA, leaving a small portion of land, which was shown in the layout plan, as commercial land. 8. By an order dated 17.04.2002, under challenge in this writ petition, and against which an appeal was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, the land was resumed, in exercise of powers under Section 90B of the Act of 1956, on the ground that a large portion of the land had already been sold, and on which, a colony has been developed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since under the orders of the Supreme Court, the appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner has been withdrawn, and that the petitioners are not challenging the vires of Section 90A and B of the Act of 1956, a liberty may be given to them to pursue their remedies against the impugned order, before an appropriate forum. 10. We are informed that earlier the Government wanted surrender of land for the purposes of development, and that the land, which is sought to be protected by the petitioners, was included in a large piece of land, as a plot was allotted to the M/s Green Fire Hospital. We are also informed that allotment made in favour of M/s Green Fire Hospital, was subsequently cancelled by the JDA. This fact has been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the M/s Green Fire Hospital. 11. It is submitted that the order, by which allotment was sought to be cancelled, has been challenged by M/s Green Fire Hospital in a separate writ petition in the High Court, and there is an interim order in the writ petition. 12. In this writ petition, we are not concerned with the allotment made to M/s Green Fire Hospital; the validity of the allotment, or order of cancellation of allotment, which was made in favour of M/s Green Fire Hospital. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.04.2002, against which an appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner has since been withdrawn. 13. The writ petition is, consequently, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedies against the order dated 17.04.2002, or any other collateral or consequential order, before an appropriate forum, in accordance with law.