JUDGMENT

G. P. MATHUR, J. — Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the order dated 28.5.2004 of High Court of Rajasthan by which the review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

3. It is necessary to mention some basic facts for the decision of the appeal. The respondent, C.L. Mishra, sent a letter to the Rajasthan High Court that a temple had been con¬structed on a land adjoining Bagla Mukhi Sadhana Kendra in Sector 3, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, a place which was earmarked for a park and the construction had been made without prior approval of the competent authorities. The letter was treated as a public inter¬est litigation and was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6051 of 1997 at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court. Notices were issued to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Rajasthan Hous¬ing Board, Collector Jaipur, and two private persons namely Shyam Lal Gulani and Hargum Dass Motwani, who were alleged to have raised the unauthorized construction. These persons filed a joint reply asserting that the writ petitioner himself was an unau¬thorized occupant and he had forcibly taken possession of the temple where he was residing. They also submitted that a public temple exists on the disputed land for a long time and was shown to be land of temple in the maps and plans of Rajasthan Housing Board and that of Jaipur Municipal Corporation. They denied that the temple had been constructed by encroaching upon land, which was earmarked for a park. The Rajasthan Housing Board filed a reply stating, inter alia, that there was a temple on the land alleged by the writ petitioner but no work of new construction was found. On enquiry from the residence of the area it was found that the temple was being maintained by Pujya Sindhi Panchayat, Sector 3. It was also stated that in the municipal map it was shown as a temple and the land had been earmarked for the same. The other plea taken by the Board was that after construction of the colony, the same had been handed over to Jaipur Municipal Corporation and if any unauthorized construction had been made, it was the responsibility of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation to remove the same. The Jaipur Municipal Corporation also filed a reply stating, inter alia, that on 9.11.1992 the charge of cer¬tain sectors in Malviya Nagar was handed over by Rajasthan Hous¬ing Board to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation. The Housing Board had not handed over the strip of land which remained vacant in the colony or in respect of which the title was in dispute and has kept all such lands in its own ownership. The Municipal Corporation thus denied any responsibility in the matter of removal of encroachment from the land.

4. After noticing the pleas and contentions raised by various parties, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by the order dated 8.5.2000 and the last two paragraphs thereof, which contain the operative portion of the order, are being reproduced below :-

“We would, therefore, dispose of this petition by directing that the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur shall be responsible for removal of encroachment from the land handed over to it for main¬tenance etc. by the Rajasthan Housing Board. We would also direct that completion of the formalities of completely handing over land to the Municipal Corporation by the Rajasthan Housing Board shall also be expedited. We are not making any observations on the factual situation and rival contentions about the existence or otherwise of the encroachment and the rights of the parties. When the Municipal Corporation takes action for removal of the encroachment it shall naturally, in compliance with the law, afford adequate opportunity to the persons known to be in posses¬sion of the encroached portions to be in their possession, before removing the encroachments. We expect the Municipal Corporation to discharge its functions expeditiously and if it finds that the public land has been encroached upon, it shall take