ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the orders passed by the Competent Authorities dated 18.11.1996 (Annexure-6), 23.12.1997 (Annexure-7) and communication dated 20.12.2000 may be directed to be complied with and regularize the land of the petitioner in conformity with the order passed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father was a freedom fighter and a landless labour. The father of the petitioner was in possession of 2 Bighas 19 Biswas of land, which was developed and improved for agricultural purposes. The possession of the land was taken by the father of the petitioner in Samwat 2022 and in revenue record, it was recorded as Najayaj Kabja. The petitioner remained in continuous possession of the land after the death of his father and still holding the possession till date. In the year 1968, the proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were undertaken but the proceedings were dropped and ultimately the possession of the petitioner and his father was not disturbed. The petitioner continued with the possession of the land and filed a petition for regularization of the same in the year 1994 before the Revenue Authorities. Vide order dated 17.11.1995, the District Collector, Rajsamand passed an order that the land in question is not fit for regularization. Against the order dated 17.11.1995, the petitioner preferred a representation to the State Government and the State Government vide order dated 17.01.1996 declined to regularize the land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision petition under Section 85A of the Land Revenue Act before the learned Revenue Minister challenging the order dated 17.01.1996 passed by the State Government. The learned Revenue Minister vide order dated 18.11.1996 allowed the revision petition and ordered the respondents to regularize the land in favour of the petitioner. The communication to that effect was also made vide order dated 06.01.1997. The District Collector vide order dated 04.03.1997 sought guidance from the State Government about the regularization of the land in question. The State Government vide communication dated 23.12.1997 reiterated the stand taken and directed for regularization of the land in favour of the petitioner. When nothing was done, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 30.08.1999 for compliance of the orders dated 18.11.1996 and 06.01.1997. The State Government vide communication dated 23.12.1997 reiterated the stand taken and directed for regularization of the land in favour of the petitioner. When nothing was done, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 30.08.1999 for compliance of the orders dated 18.11.1996 and 06.01.1997. When the order for regularization was not made, one more communication was made by the State Government on 04.09.1999 to the Collector and was reminded for complying with the order passed on 18.11.1996. 4. When the order for regularization was not made, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4587/1999 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.1999 directing the District Collector to decide the representation made by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the State Government vide order dated 20.12.2000 once again passed an order directing the Collector to comply with the order dated 18.11.1996. The order dated 20.12.2000 was communicated to the Collector, Rajsamand vide order dated 12.09.2001. After passing of these orders, a protracted correspondence was made between the State Government and the Collector. Despite the number of communications and requisite orders having been passed from time to time for regularization has not been passed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for compliance of the order passed by the Competent Authorities of the State Government. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in view of the chronology of facts mentioned above, the Collector, Rajsamand- respondent No.2 ought to have passed the order for regularization of the land, but till date, no order has been passed for regularization of the land possessed by the petitioner, he, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be allowed and the respondent No.2- the Collector, Rajsamand may be directed to pass the order for regularization of the land possessed by the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the land in question is a Pasture Land and has also now come in the Municipal Limits of Rajsamand, therefore, the same cannot be allotted to the petitioner. However, learned State counsel very fairly submits that there is ample provisions and powers in the rules for allotment of the Pasture Land, but the same can be done subject to the condition that equal amount of Pasture Land should be reserved in some other place in the near vicinity. However, learned State counsel very fairly submits that there is ample provisions and powers in the rules for allotment of the Pasture Land, but the same can be done subject to the condition that equal amount of Pasture Land should be reserved in some other place in the near vicinity. Learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the fact with respect to the orders having been passed by the State Government in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that since the land occupied by the petitioner is a Pasture Land, the same cannot be regularized and, he, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. On the basis of the revenue record, the possession of the land in question is with the petitioner since Samvat 2022 and as per the revenue entries of Samvat 2024, it shows that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question as Najayaj Kabja. Thereafter, the protracted correspondence and orders passed by the Competent Authorities of the State Government shows that the land in question is directed to be regularized in favour of the petitioner. The direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition to decide the representation has also been made. The remedies available under the law has also been exhausted by the petitioner for redressal of his grievance. Since the Competent Authorities of the State Government has passed the orders for regularization of the land in question, this Court fails to understand as to why the direction issued by the State Government has not been complied with so far. If the land held by the petitioner is a Pasture Land then the provisions on the subject very clearly show that in the event of such land being regularized, the equal amount of Pasture Land in the near vicinity requires to be reserved for grazing of the animals. There is nothing on record to show that the equal amount of land is not available in the near vicinity for allotment of Pasture Land in lieu of the land being regularized in favour of the petitioner. 8. There is nothing on record to show that the equal amount of land is not available in the near vicinity for allotment of Pasture Land in lieu of the land being regularized in favour of the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, the respondent No.2- District Collector, Rajsamand is directed to consider the direction/orders issued by the State Government from time to time and pass an order for regularization of the land held by the petitioner and if the same is not amenable to regularize, then the Collector, Rajsamand is directed to pass a detailed reasoned and speaking order for what reason the same cannot be done, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. The present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 10. The stay petition as well as other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.