The legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot retrospectively undo a legal status created by a predecessor, and a valid explanation for inaction over a long period is required.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. The matter comes up on an applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India preferred on behalf of respondent No.3 & 4 respectively, for vacation of the stay order dated 12.06.2020 passed by this Court. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs:

"A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly issued and quashed & set aside the order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure-5) passed by Senior Civil Judge and order dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure11) passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, in Civil Appeal No.23/2019.

B. by an appropriate writ, order or direction that order may kindly be issued and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. against the respondents may kindly be allowed as prayed.

C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued.

D. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

4. As the record of the case would reveal, on 27.07.1964, a sale deed was executed by Navlaram (father of the petitionerplanitiff) and Motiram (uncle of the petitioner-plaintiff), being original khatedar of the land khasra No.1192 (rakba 35 bigha 2 biswa) situated in erstwhile Village Barmer (as per the present Jamabandi, Rakba 35 bigha 3 Biswa Barani Soyam situated at Revenue Village, Barmer City), in favour of one Smt. Meti Devi w/o Late Shri Lal Chand and their minors sons, namely, Mohan @ Lekhraj and Babu @ Jairam. Defendants No.1 and 2 Lekhraj and Jairam are sons of Late Shri Lal Chand. However, thereafter, another sale deed dated 28.05.1973 (registered on 29.05.1973), in respect of the same land in question, was executed by Navla Ram s/o Dana Ram, in favour of Bhanwarlal, Mohanlal, Satyanarayan, Parasmal, Dharmchand, Mewaram, Bhagwandas and Babulal. Thereafter, Satyanarayan s/o Dwarkadas, Parasmal s/o Giriram, Dharmchand s/o Birdichand, Mewaram s/o Hajariram and Bhagwandas s/o Dwarkadas, who were holding 3/4th share in the land in question, pursuant to the concerned sale deed dated 28.05.1973, sold their respective share in the land in question to the respondent-Ms. Golden Dunues Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur (respondent-Company), through various sale deeds i.e. dated 05.01.2012 and 03.02.2012 respectively, and accordingly, entry No.3400, as approved on 21.02.2012, was made in its favour in the revenue records, and also the necessary possession was also handed over to the respondent-Company, thereby in the relevant revenue records, 3/4th share in respect of the land in question was recorded in the name of the respondent-Company, and remaining 1/4 share in the name of Babulal s/o Aasulal, and Ratanlal, Suresh and Ganpat (sons of Late Mohanlal).

5. On 06.11.2007, the Public Health and Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for acquisition of the land measuring 35.03 bigha of Khasra No.1192 situated at Barmer, i.e. the land in question. Thereafter, certain objections were filed pursuant to the said notification, and after considering such objections, the PHED, Government of Rajasthan, while issuing another notification dated 22.08.2008, had withdrawn the earlier acquisition notification dated 06.11.2007.

6. In the year 2012, Lekhraj and Jairam - both sons of Late Shri Lal Chand preferred an appeal before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Barmer under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 challenging the mutation made pursuant to the concerned sale deed, in favour of Bhanwarlal and others, alleging therein that in view of the earlier sale deed dated 27.