Mimu @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 22.07.2015 passed in SBCWP No.1470/2014 and the order dated

30.08.2017 passed in Writ Misc. Application No.124/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in fact writ petition was filed by the appellants/writ-petitioners in which a prayer was made to quash

the order dated 06.11.2012 (Annex.11) passed by District Collector, Jaisalmer and further made a prayer to allot land measuring 60 Bigha in Khara

Nos.420 and 421 of Village Jaisalmer to the appellants/writ-petitioners in exchange of their acquired land. In the alternative, it is also prayed that the

District Collector may be directed to consider the application filed by the writ-petitioners under Sections 48 (2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in

objective manner after considering the reports of the revenue officers.

The writ petition was listed in the Court on 22.07.2015 and on that date, due to mistake, the writ petition was withdrawn with permission to avail

appropriate remedy available under the law in respect of aforesaid grievances raised in the petition.

After examining the relief provision of law, an application was moved by the appellants/writ-petitioners for recalling the order dated 22.07.2015 on the

strength that there is no alternative remedy under the law for seeking relief as prayed in the writ petition. An affidavit of the counsel Mr. Prateek

Surana, has been filed, who appeared before the court at the time of withdrawal of the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no reply was filed by the State Government to the application moved by the appellants/writ-petitioners

for recalling the order dated 22.07.2015 in which a plea was taken that due to mistake, the writ petition was withdrawn for availing alternative remedy

under law, but in fact no other alternative remedy is available, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the prayer on the basis of

affidavit submitted by the counsel for the writpetitioners/appellants, but without considering the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge rejected the

application filed by the appellants for recalling the order dated 22.07.2015 vide its order dated 30.08.2017.

After considering the entire facts of the case, so also, upon the fact that in support of application for recalling of order specific plea was taken in the

affidavit by the lawyer concerned who appeared before the learned Single Judge on 22.07.2015 that there is no alternative remedy, the learned Single

Judge refused to consider the prayer for recalling the order, therefore, in the interest of justice and for the reason that no person can be made

remediless, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal to to quash the order impugned.

Consequently, the instant appeal is hereby allowed and the orders impugned dated 22.07.2015 and 30.08.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in the

writ petition and upon misc. application respectively, are set aside and the matter is remitted hereby to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ

petition on merits.