SHRI KISHAN Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ order or direction to the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board to grant benefit of its own policy decision to the petitioner, published in the daily newspaper dated 17. 3. 1988 and to act accordingly. He has further prayed that the land belonging to the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 157 measuring 5 Biswas of land situated in village Sukhalpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur was not included in the notification for acquisition and therefore it should not be interfered with by the respondents and they should be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from this land as he is the lawful owner of this area of land.

(2.) THE petitioner's specific case is that although large parts of land in the adjoining area were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953, this area of land measuring 5 biswas in Khasra No. 157 was not notified either under Section 5 or Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act meaning thereby that this piece of land was never acquired. It is on this averment that the petitioner states that this area of the land should not be touched upon either by the respondent-State or by the Rajasthan Housing Board and, therefore, he has prayed that an order restraining the respondents from interfering with this land should be passed. It has further been submitted that the State Government has taken a policy decision in regard to this piece of land also alongwith other parts of land to the effect that the possession of the owners would not be disturbed from these chunks of land.

(3.) IN my opinion this submission is absolutely devoid of substance as this Court under its writ jurisdiction cannot be expected to direct the respondent-State that a particular policy decision should be forthwith implemented in favour of the petitioner as if it were an award passed without contest. Perhaps it needs no reiteration that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia cannot be expected to function as an executing court nor it can be expected to direct the respondent- authority to execute its own policy decision as if it had statutory force.