Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents by issuing notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 05.01.1978 in relation to land belonging to temple Shri Ramchandraji of village Deogarh having khasras Nos. 669, 670, 671, 672, 673 and 674 on the ground that though the notification was issued on 18.05.1978 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, but the notification under Sec. 6 read with Section 17(4) was issued on 07.11.1987 after about 9 years from the date of notification under Sec. 4. Further no award has yet been passed by the land acquisition officer and, therefore, all the proceedings initiated by issuing notification under Sec. 4 dt. 18.05.1978 has lapsed.

3. The litigation has chequered history in view of the fact that this writ petition has been filed in the name of temple Shri Ramchandraji through its manager Madanmohan S/o Chimanlalji. The same person Madanmohan filed a writ petition to challenge these very land acquisition proceedings in his own name on 18.02.1988 and the same was registered as SBCWP No.464/1988 and by order of this Court dt. 19.02.1988 the notices of the writ petition were issued to the respondents. The respondent No.3 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pratapgarh submitted the reply to the writ petition on 07.08.1989 wherein a copy of the order passed by the Board of Revenue dt. 18.07.1974 was submitted by the respondent No.3 and it was submitted that the petitioner Madanmohan has no right to file the writ petition on behalf of the temple as the petitioner’s claim was that he is successor of one Chimanlal who became khatedar tenant of the land in dispute by virtue of operation of law whereby the khatedari tenancy rights have been given to the Sikmi Kastkar of the land of Jagirdars of Doli land and that claim of the petitioner Madanmohan was also rejected by the revenue authorities in the proceedings initiated long back before the year 1971. According to respondent No.3 one Sitaramdas was the Pujari of the temple in question but wrongly the name of Chimanlalji was entered in the revenue record against the land of the temple showing Chimanlalji as Sikmi Kastkar. Sitaramdas challenged the mutation order by which Chimanlalji’s name was entered in the revenue record before the Addl. Collector, Chittorgarh. Agaisnt the order of the Tehsildar, Pratapgarh dt. 10.12.1967, Sitaramdas’s appeal was rejected by the learned Addl. Collector vide order dt. 25.10.1969. Being aggrieved against the said order, Sitaramdas preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, which was allowed on 17.11.1971. Being aggrieved against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dt. 17.11.1971, Chimanlalji preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 17.07.1974 and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur as well as Board of Revenue held that the land in question belonging to the temple could not have been entered in the name of Chimanlalji. Faced with this situation, the petitioner Madanmohan submitted an application for amendement of the writ petition No.464/1988. On this application, no order was passed by this Court. However, the petitioner submitted amended writ petition on 24.05.1988. The petitioner Madanmohan withdrew the writ petition No.464/1988 on 25.01.1993 after obtaining liberty from this Court to file fresh writ petition. It appears that the petitioner was advised to file writ petition in the name of temple as he could not have maintained the writ petition in his name, therefore, he withdrew the writ petition No.464/1988 and filed this writ petition.

4. In this writ petition, the petitioner disclosed himself to be the manager of the temple Shri Ramchandraji, Deogarh and has challenged the same land acquisition proceedings, which was initiated by issuing notification of 1987. The grounds are same grounds, w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document