Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1539 (RAJ)

Ashok Sankhla v. Board of Revenue

2005-05-24

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed in appeal Nos. 8/2004 and 9/2004 decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur by order dated 12.04.2004 and against the order of Board of Revenue dated 21.04.2005 by which the revision petitions against these two orders were dismissed by the Board of Revenue by common order. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the petitioners, obtained Patta for the land in question against which no appeal could have been preferred as appeal against such order is not provided under Urban Improvement Act, 1959, still the appellate Court, Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur not only entertained the appeals but allowed the appeals despite the objection of the petitioners about the jurisdiction of the appellate Court. 3. It is also submitted that the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur as sell as the Board of Revenue committed serious error of law in as-much-as that once the Patta has been issued by the competent authority under the provision of Section 19-B of the Urban Improvement Act, the same cannot be cancelled except by the order/decree of civil Court. Many other objections have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on merit to justify for the grant of Patta in their favour on the basis of factual position of land in question, like the petitioners are claiming the regularisation of the land on the basis of old possession and it is lying adjoining to their fathers land of Khashra No. 113/02 measuring 5. bigha and are not claiming any Patta out of the land of their father. Both the Courts below proceeded to decide the appeal and the revision petition under assumption that the Patta has been obtained from the land of the petitioners father which was sold by the petitioners father in the year 1988. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the Patta has been obtained by submitting false affidavit of father of the petitioners whereas in fact the land of father of the petitioners was sold as back as on 02.09.1988 and the petitioners submitted their application for regularisation of land and for that purpose they submitted affidavit of their father stating therein that the petitioners father has no objection in case the land is allotted or patta is granted to the applicants petitioners. 5. 5. I considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent Dhanna Ram who preferred the appeal before Divisional Commissioner against the Patta of the petitioners. The fact is not in dispute that the petitioners father sold his Khatedari land of Khasra No. 113/02 measuring 2 bigha 5 biswa on 02.09.1988. The petitioners submitted application for grant of Patta for the adjoining land. The measurement of the land for which Patta has been granted is 25x30 feet in one case and 40x30 feet in another case. The petitioners claim is that they are in possession of the said land. As per law even Govt. land can be regularised on the basis of the old possession under Section 90-B of the Urban Improvement Act. The petitioners submitted affidavit of their father after showing him to be the Khatedar tenant of land of Khasra No. 113/02. The petitioners father after showing him as Khatedar tenant of adjoining land though he sold that land in the year 1988 to 17 persons gave no objection for grant of Patta to his sons. This clearly shows that the Pattas were obtained by the petitioners by giving false affidavit before the competent authority. 6. The contention of the petitioners that even if the affidavit is ignored even then the petitioners were entitled to have Patta in their names for the land in question. Such a contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioners themselves by submitting an affidavit of their father pursuaded the authorities to believe that the petitioners are in possession of the land for which they are seeking Patta and neighbour is supporting the contention of the applicants petitioners about their old possession. The petitioners after submitting the false affidavit cannot say that piece of affidavit has been filed for no use. It cannot be presumed that affidavit was filed without any object behind it. After obtaining favourable order on the basis of the evidence produced by the applicants themselves they cannot simply say that ignore the evidence and decide the entitlement of the petitioners. This is relevant because of the reason that the allegations against the petitioners for getting regularisation of the land are serious one as both the Courts below held that the parties are void one. This is relevant because of the reason that the allegations against the petitioners for getting regularisation of the land are serious one as both the Courts below held that the parties are void one. The conduct of the petitioners disentitles them from invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the above reasons I find no reason to interfere in the order passed by two Courts below which may result into giving undue advantage to the petitioners of technicalities of law. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.