JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 4-8-1998 (Annex. 6) passed by the learned Special Judge (III) (Pong Dam Oustees Matters), Sri Ganganagar. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner being a Pong Dam Qustee was allotted land under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Govt. Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their transferees in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972 (herein after referred to as 'the Pong Dam Rules') to the extent of 25 bighas in 1972. The said allotment was cancelled by the order dated 4-7-1992 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar on the ground that when the survey was conducted petitioner was not found in actual physical possession of the land and when the show cause notice was issued, he did not appear and when he was served by the substituted service i.e. publication in the local news papers, even then he did not make any attempt to appear, thus, the Court had no option but to cancel the allotment in his favour. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. However, during the pendency of the said appeal, matter had gone before Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed for review of all the cases. The matter was reviewed by the special Judge, Pong Dam Oustees Matters and, even while reviewing the allotment, it has been held that the petitioner was not cultivating the land himself and thus, was not entitled to retain the said allotment. Hence this petition. 4. The issue whether the petitioner was cultivating the land himself or not is a question of fact and it is not likely to be disturbed in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has contended before the learned Special Judge, Pong Dam Oustees Matters that he was getting the said land cultivated by engaging labourers. A mere statement to that effect was not enough. He ought to have examined certain persons in support of said statement. Petitioner miserably failed to substantiate the said contention raised before the learned Special Judge. 5. The petitioner has contended before the learned Special Judge, Pong Dam Oustees Matters that he was getting the said land cultivated by engaging labourers. A mere statement to that effect was not enough. He ought to have examined certain persons in support of said statement. Petitioner miserably failed to substantiate the said contention raised before the learned Special Judge. 5. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the petition. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "In our opinion, when a point, which is obstensibly a point of law is required to be sub-stantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit, If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as, the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it." (Emphasis added) 6. Similar view has been reiterated in Larsen & Tubro v. State of Gujarat, (1998) 4 SCC 387 ; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66 ; and Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani, (1999) 1 SCC 141 . 7. There is no force in the contention raised by Shri Purohit that he had examined Shri Mani Ram as AW 2 who deposed that he had been in possession of the land only in the year 1977-78 and subsequently he did not cultivate the land in question. Evidence of said Shri Mani Ram had no relevance. 7. There is no force in the contention raised by Shri Purohit that he had examined Shri Mani Ram as AW 2 who deposed that he had been in possession of the land only in the year 1977-78 and subsequently he did not cultivate the land in question. Evidence of said Shri Mani Ram had no relevance. When petitioner himself has deposed before the learned special Judge that he was getting the land cultivated through labourers, he ought to have examined either labourers or some other persons to substantiate the said contention. As the petitioner did not prove the said averment before the special Judge, the impugned judgment and order do not require any interference. 8. Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******