ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents to comply with the decree dated 03.12.1981 passed by SDO, Jaisalmer and further a restrain against the respondents from taking action against the petitioners under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 ('the Colonisation Act') and/or under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Land Revenue Act'). 2. The petitioners' father/husband Mahadan Singh filed a suit under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Rajasthan Tenancy Act') in the year 1979 before the SDO, Jaisalmer seeking declaration of Gair khatedari Rights in land ad-measuring 30 Bigha 8 Biswa comprised in Khasra No.293 having a total area of 140 Bigha 16 Biswa. 3. After trial, the suit was decreed by judgment & decree dated 03.12.1981. The petitioners' father Mahadan Singh was declared Gair khatedar of the land admeasuring 30 Bigha 8 Biswa. It was further directed that the land revenue be realized from the plaintiff and the land be recorded in his name. 4. It is claimed in the writ petition that the petitioners' father Mahadan Singh died in the year 1986 and the petitioners, who are Ex-servicemen after discharged from the Armed Forces returned back in the year 1998 and were served with the notices under Section 22 of the Colonization Act. 5. It is submitted that though the petitioners were in possession as Gair khatedars being legal representatives of the deceased Mahadan Singh having a decree in their favour, the penalty imposed was paid. 6. Based on the above facts, a prayer has been made that in view of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners (being legal representatives of the deceased Mahadan Singh), the respondents be directed to record the land in their name as Gair khatedar and they be given benefit of provisions of Section 15AAA(2A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 7. A response has been filed by the State, inter alia, questioning the intentions of the petitioners and it is alleged that despite passing of the decree, the petitioners/their father were not sincere enough to get the decree executed and even when the notices under Section 22 of the Colonization Act were issued to them, they chose not to contest the same and penalty was imposed on/paid by them. Further submissions have been made that in so far as the execution of the decree passed by the SDO, Jaisalmer dated 03.12.1981 is concerned, the execution thereof is barred by limitation and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that passing of the decree and the petitioners' possession of the land is not in dispute and, therefore, the respondents are not justified in repeatedly treating the petitioners as trespassers and, therefore, the respondents deserves to be restrained. Further prayer has been made that in pursuance of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners' father way back in the year 1981, the respondents be directed to comply with the said decree. 9. Regarding the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents regarding execution of the decree being barred by limitation, it is submitted that it does not behove of the respondent-State to raise a plea of limitation to defeat a just claim after failing to implement the decree passed in favour of the petitioners. 10. Reliance has been placed on Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International : AIR 1979 SC 1144 . 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterated the submissions as noticed hereinbefore and submitted that the decree passed is ex-facie barred by limitation and, therefore, the same now cannot be enforced. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. A perusal of the record reveals that passing of the decree in favour of the petitioners' father dated 03.12.1981 and the same becoming final has not been disputed by the respondent-State. Further, the petitioners have made specific averments regarding the land, which was subject matter of the decree, presently forming part of Chak No.43 LLB square No.72/7 kila No.1 to 15 = 15 Bigha and square No.72/8 kila No.1, 2, 10, 11, 15 to 25 = 15 Bigha, which averments have also not been disputed in the reply. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the said land on account of which notices under Section 22 of the Colonization Act were issued to the petitioners. 14. In view thereof, the only issue, which arises for consideration is regarding the implementation of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners' father. 15. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the said land on account of which notices under Section 22 of the Colonization Act were issued to the petitioners. 14. In view thereof, the only issue, which arises for consideration is regarding the implementation of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners' father. 15. The plea raised by the petitioners regarding death of their father in the year 1986 and the petitioners having been discharged from the Armed Forces in the year 1998 has also not been questioned/disputed in the reply. It is also not the case of the respondents that any notice prior to 1999 was issued to the petitioners. Therefore, in those circumstances, the fact that the present petition has been filed immediately on the petitioners being subjected to proceeding under Section 22 of the Colonization Act, clearly shows that there is apparently no culpable delay. 16. In so far as the plea of limitation raised by the respondent-State is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Port Trust (supra) observed as under:- "2. It is high time that Governments and public authorities adopt the practise of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the Court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable." 17. It would be noticed that Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated any resort to plea of limitation by public authority to defeat just claim of citizens observing that though permissible under law, such technical plea should only be taken when claim is not well founded. In view of the above principles, the plea raised in this regard cannot be countenanced. 18. However, it appears that the petitioners instead of approaching the concerned authorities for the purpose of implementation of the decree have filed the present writ petition. 19. In view of the above principles, the plea raised in this regard cannot be countenanced. 18. However, it appears that the petitioners instead of approaching the concerned authorities for the purpose of implementation of the decree have filed the present writ petition. 19. In view thereof, the petitioners have to approach the concerned authority i.e. the Tehsildar Colonization, Ramgarh No.1, District - Jaisalmer for the implementation of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners. 20. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed. The petitioners pursuant to the decree dated 03.12.1981 would approach the respondent No.4 - The Tehsildar Colonization, Ramgarh No.1, District - Jaisalmer within a period of 30 days and on petitioners' approaching the said authority, in view of the observations made herein above, requisite would be done by the said authority in terms of the decree, in accordance with law. The needful be done by the respondent No.4, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. Till such time that requisite is done by the respondent No.4, the respondent-authorities would not take any action against the petitioners under Section 22 of the Colonization Act and/or 91 of the Land Revenue Act.