JUDGMENT : 1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioners and further be pleased to direct the respondents to the following effect: (A) the impugned notice dated 15.10.2018 (Annex.6) so issued to the petitioners are well as subsequent proceedings initiated in pursuance to the impugned notice (Annex.6) may kindly be ordered to be quashed & set aside; (B) the respondents herein may kindly be restrained from disturbing peaceful and lawful possession of the petitioners, over the land in question situated at various Khasras as has been mentioned in the foregoing paras of the writ petition, in the garb of the impugned notice dated 15 th Oct., 2018 (Annex.6); (C) any other order or direction, which this Hon’nble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioners; (D) the cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioners. 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the petitioners are agriculturists, having their agricultural lands situated at Chokha Bye-Pass, Distt,. Jodhpur and the concerned Revenue Officer has issued Girdawari in respect of the lands in question. The respondents initiated the proceeding of acquisition of the lands, and after the same being undertaken, the petitioners were paid compensation against the lands in Village Chokha, Distt. Jodhpur, acquired for the purpose of development of Jodhpur Bye-Pass Road. 2.1. Thereafter, the respondents issued a notice under Section 67 of the Jodhpur Development Authority Act, 2009 to the petitioners for removal of the encroachments from public lands, and the petitioners gave reply to the said notice. The respondents again issued notice to the petitioners on 15.10.2018 and stated that the petitioners have encroached upon the lands of the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA); the petitioners appeared before the concerned authority and filed reply, while raising preliminary objection against the said notice. The respondents again issued notice to the petitioners on 15.10.2018 and stated that the petitioners have encroached upon the lands of the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA); the petitioners appeared before the concerned authority and filed reply, while raising preliminary objection against the said notice. Thereafter, the respondents without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without passing any order on the reply and objection raised by the petitioners, came to the petitioners’ lands with Police Force for removal of the alleged encroachments. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are recorded khatedars of the lands in question and have electricity connection thereon, for last 20 years. As per learned counsel, the respondents without any jurisdiction removed the construction raised over the lands in question, despite being aware that the petitioners are recorded Khatedars of the said lands. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the lands in questions do not belong to the respondent-JDA, and thus, the petitioners cannot be termed encroachers over the same, as claimed by the respondents. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned actions of the respondents are illegal and bad in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the concerned revenue authorities have verified the factual position of the land in question, and recently, the SDM, Jodhpur has submitted its report to the effect that Khasra No.867/3 and Khasra No.867/4 are in khatedari of the present petitioners; it has been further submitted that the land situated in village Chokha in khasra nos.483, 484, 486 & 479, and in khasra No.41 of Village Chak Chokha, which is in the name of PWD and is lying vacant and road is not being constructed over the land so acquired by the competent authority way back; it has been further submitted that after sanction from the competent authority, the LOP cannot be changed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the present controversy is covered by the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed in the case of Paras Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 655/2021 decided on 17.10.2022). Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 655/2021 decided on 17.10.2022). The said order reads as under: - “The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "i. The respondents may kindly be restrained from taking possession of the land in question from the humble petitioners without initiating acquisition proceedings and without paying appropriate compensation in lie thereof; ii. The respondents may kindly be directed to make payment of the appropriate compensation with regard to the demolished portion of the house of the humble petitioners." Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents are acquiring the pattashud land of the petitioners without taking recourse of law for the purpose of constructing road. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that for construction of the roads, the appropriate proceedings will be undertaken for acquiring the lands and there is no question to utilize the land of the petitioners for the purpose of constructing the road dehors the law. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners for construction of the road, if at all required, after taking recourse to the provisions of law. Needless to say that the outcome of taking the possession of such land, the compensation shall be paid, if the petitioners satisfy the authorities that they are the rightful owners of the land in question. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.” 7. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case and the order referred hereinabove, on behalf of the respondents. 8. This Court finds that the acquisition of the lands in question was necessary for espousing the larger public interest, and thus, the same has rightly been done; moreover, the present controversy is covered by the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Paras Ram (Supra). 9. Thus, in light of the order passed in Paras Ram (Supra) and looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the material placed on record, as also looking into the public interest involved herein, the present petition does not merit acceptance, and the same is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are accordingly directed to proceed in the matter, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications are disposed of.