ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Ashapura Vikas Samiti, a Housing Society, and one Pradeep Kumar Jain, claiming to be an office bearer of the aforesaid Society, are in appeal before us challenging the judgment and order dated 12.03.2018, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in DB Special Appeal Writ No. 373/2002 and connected matters, whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.03.2002, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2903/1994, was set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge for a fresh adjudication of the above-stated Writ Petition. 3. The controversy revolves around a parcel of land situated in village Bhojpura, Tehsil and District Jaipur, Rajasthan, popularly known as 'Amroodan ka Bagh'. The subject land, measuring 48 bighas 2 biswas, falls within the municipal area of Jaipur City. 4. The appellants approached the High Court through a Writ Petition in which (i) the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government; (ii) the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department; (iii) the Director, Land Conversion, Urban Development and Housing Department; and (iv) the Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority were impleaded as party respondents. The following reliefs were sought in the aforementioned Writ Petition: '(a) to delete/remove the name of the land in question from the order dated 18-2-1994 of the State Government (Annexure No.12) and the public notice of the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur dated 22-3-1994 (Annexure No.13). (b) to direct the respondents to regularise the land/plots in question belonging to the members of the petitioner samiti. (c) to give all benefits to the members of the petitioner samiti as per the order dated 18-2-1994. (d) any other writ, order or direction which your Lordships may deem proper to be passed in the interest of justice and to grant adequate relief to the petitioner samiti.' 5. The entire Writ Petition was based on the premise that an Agreement to Sell was entered into between Anand Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti and Col. Bhawani Singh on 03.05.1975, and that possession of the land was handed over to the above-named Samiti. It was further averred that the Samiti chalked out a plan for development of the land into residential plots known as 'Ashapura Scheme'. 6. Bhawani Singh on 03.05.1975, and that possession of the land was handed over to the above-named Samiti. It was further averred that the Samiti chalked out a plan for development of the land into residential plots known as 'Ashapura Scheme'. 6. Since the State of Rajasthan acquired the land, the instant Writ Petition was filed wherein the learned Single Judge, after holding that the subject land was not under acquisition, declared the Writ Petitioner-Samiti as the owner in possession. 7. Against this judgment of the learned Single Judge, separate intra-court appeals were filed before the Division Bench by (i) the State of Rajasthan, (ii) the Administrator-cum-Receiver of the property of late His Highness Raja Man Singh (namely, Justice Surendra Kumar Mishra, a former Judge of the Delhi High Court, who had been appointed so by the Delhi High Court), (iii) Col. Bhawani Singh, s/o of late His Highness Man Singh, and (iv) the Jaipur Development Authority. 8. The precise claim of the Administrator-cum-Receiver of the properties of late Raja Man Singh as well as his son Col. Bhawani Singh was that there took place no valid transfer of the land in favour of the appellant-Society, and that their ownership rights have been adversely affected by the order of the learned Single Judge without being impleaded as party respondents. 9. It is in this backdrop that the Division Bench of the High Court, vide the impugned order dated 12.03.2018, set aside the judgment, challenged before it, and remanded the case to the learned Single Judge with a request to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties concerned. Till such time, the Division Bench directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the subject land. 10. The appellant-Samiti and its officer being aggrieved have approached this Court by way of the instant appeals. 11. On 12.11.2018, while issuing notice, the status quo, as it existed on that date, was directed to be maintained until further orders. 12. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. There are competing claims with respect to the land in question. Both sides are relying upon certain records/documents. It goes without saying that the Society intends to draw its title from Col. Bhawani Singh, who was the legal heir of Raja Man Singh. Col. 12. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. There are competing claims with respect to the land in question. Both sides are relying upon certain records/documents. It goes without saying that the Society intends to draw its title from Col. Bhawani Singh, who was the legal heir of Raja Man Singh. Col. Bhawani Singh himself went in appeal questioning the legality and propriety of the alleged Agreement to Sell purported to have been executed by him. 14. In our considered view, all these questions of facts can be effectively adjudicated by the High Court only when the parties concerned are able to represent their respective claim. The matter may require summoning of records as well as adjudication on the legality of certain documents alleged to have been executed before and after independence or merger of the Jaipur State as an integral part of India. All that we wish to observe at this stage is that since the learned Single Judge returned findings without hearing the affected parties, it is difficult to accept those findings as the conclusive determination of the issues. Similarly, the Division Bench of the High Court has not gone into the merits of the case at all, and has only remanded the case to the learned Single Judge. 15. That being the state of affairs, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions: (i) The matter is remitted to the High Court where S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2903/1994, shall be taken up for hearing afresh. (ii) Since the parties are litigating for decades, it is directed in the interest of justice, and on their joint suggestion, that the above-stated Writ Petition shall be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. (iii) The appellants and respondents, who approached the Division Bench of the High Court through intra-court appeals, are ordered to be impleaded as party respondents in the Writ Petition. The High Court, on the first date of hearing, may also determine as to whether any other party is required to be heard for effective determination of the controversy. (iv) The parties shall not be permitted more than six weeks' time to complete the pleadings. The High Court, on the first date of hearing, may also determine as to whether any other party is required to be heard for effective determination of the controversy. (iv) The parties shall not be permitted more than six weeks' time to complete the pleadings. It is clarified that the matter shall be heard by a Division Bench, irrespective of the roster of the High Court under which the matter may require to be listed firstly before a Single Bench. The Division Bench of the High Court is requested to expedite the hearing of matter. (v) Status quo re: possession, creation of third-party rights etc. shall be maintained by the parties till the matter is finally disposed of by the High Court. 16. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 17. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. 18. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.