JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present writ impugned notice dated respondent no.2. petition has been filed against the 15.09.2017 (annex.-6) passed by the respondent no.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the subject piece of land on the strength of patta issued by the respondents on 04.10.1989 (annex.-2). He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is legally entitled to hold the subject piece of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2008 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1053/2008 (Smt. Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan). 3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The operative portion of the order dated 08.04.2008 reads as under:- 'Looking to the discussion made above, it comes out that the issue involved in the present matter comes in a narrow compass inasmuch as counsel for the parties have stated that if the properties in dispute are being possessed by the petitioners under their legal title, then without due process of law, they would not be dispossessed by the respondents. However, if anybody has encroached upon the land, then to the extent of encroachment, the petitioners can be dispossessed. In view of the above, respondents themselves made it clear that they will not demolish the building so exist under legal title other than by due process of law. If there is any encroachment, then the issue of encroachment is required to be looked into and determined after taking note of the title documents exist with the petitioners. It is made clear that so far as respondents are concerned, they would not have authority to treat the allotment/Patta/title document to be nullity, unless it is found to be totally void or forged one. Respondents would however be at liberty to challenge the validity of the Patta or allotment if it is otherwise found to be void or forged. The respondents may take up necessary process in this regard afresh. It is further made clear that respondents would otherwise be at liberty to acquire the land as per the provisions of law'. 5. Respondents would however be at liberty to challenge the validity of the Patta or allotment if it is otherwise found to be void or forged. The respondents may take up necessary process in this regard afresh. It is further made clear that respondents would otherwise be at liberty to acquire the land as per the provisions of law'. 5. Thus, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court on 08.04.2008 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1053/2008 (supra).