Interim directions during the pendency of a writ petition should not be passed if they tend to decide the lis itself or put the parties in an irretrievable position.

1. - These appeals arise out of the same proceedings i.e. S.B. Civil Petition No. 6172/2006 : Rajiv Gandhi Colony Hitkari Samiti & Ors. and were therefore heard together and are being decided of by this common judgment.

2. The appeal by Rajiv Gandhi Colony Hitkari Samiti ('the Samiti') has been filed against order dated 21.04.2010 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, certain directions were issued and the appeal by Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur ('the JDA') has been filed against order dated 29.04.2010 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, certain further directions were issued.

3. The Samiti filed writ petition aggrieved against notices issued by erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust now JDA dated 22.9.2006, whereby, it was indicated that the UIT has taken decision to remove encroachments from Shyam Nagar Scheme area in the light of order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1159/2005 : Durga vihar Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and the encroachers were required to vacate the site within 72 hours; it was, inter alia, claimed in the writ petition that the notice was issued beyond the scope of the writ petition filed by Durga Vihar Vikas Samiti; the petitioners were in possession of the land in question from before 1991; it was prayed that the notice dated 22.09.2006 be quashed and the respondents therein be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners.

4. In the meanwhile, another public notice dated 30.4.2008 was published in newspaper again directing the petitioners to vacate the site in question.

5. The petitioners filed stay application seeking stay on the public notice, the same was dismissed by learned Single Judge by order dated 02.05.2008; it was observed as under:-

"9. Having heard learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that no interference can be made out at this stage in the legal process undertaken by the respondent - UIT for removal of encroachment. The notice published in the newspaper clearly stipulates that said encroachments are being removed in pursuance of the directions of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1159/2005- Durga Vihar Vikas Samiti's case and also in view of the contempt matter No.33/2007 pending before the Dist. Consumer Forum against the Authorities of the respondent - UIT. Even otherwise the respondent - UIT is under legal obligation to remove illegal encroachments on the land belonging to the respondent - UIT. Since it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not have any title over the land in question and they are rather encroachers over the land though for a long period, this Court is of the considered opinion that further prolonging encroachment of the petitioners over the public land does not subserve any public cause and it cannot be made an impediment in exercise of legal authority of public body like respondent - UIT. The encroachment of public land is a serious social problem which has faats on both sides, but misplaced sympathy with encroachers further aggravates this problem, rather than solving it. The law should, take its own course and therefore, if the respondent - UIT has notified that it will remove encroachment forcibly unless the same is voluntarily removed within 72 hrs. this Court finds no justification to interfere with such public notice of the respondent - UIT. Any interim order against implementation of order of this Court itself will be a contradiction, which deserves to be scrupulously avoided.

10. The stay application is, therefore, found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed."

6. Where after, the matter remained pending for a long time.

7. Where after, by the impugned order dated 21.04.2010 noticing that a detailed order was passed on 02.05.2008 (quoted hereinbefore) and two years have passed, and that there was no order of any Court preventing removal of encroachment from the disputed land and noticing that the applicants, who had filed applications seeking impleadment in t