Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 173 (RAJ)

Pratap Singh v. State

2006-01-17

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-This petition for writ is directed against Judgment dated 12.04.1989 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer affirming the Judgment dated 19.08.1982 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Colonisation (Rehabilitation) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Rajasthan Canal Project Area, Bikaner. 2. The facts required to be noticed for adjudicating present writ petition are that by the order dated 18.01.1977, the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for permanent allotment of land. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.1977 preferred an appeal alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, before Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. In the affidavit annexed to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner stated that he came to know about the order dated 18.01.1977 only on 02.09.1980 and thereafter he obtained certified copy and preferred the appeal at earliest. The petitioner contended that the limitation is required to compute from the date of knowledge. 3. The appellate authority by the order dated 19.08.1982 rejected the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner on the ground that in fact the petitioner on 04.03.1980 preferred an application to obtain a certified copy of the order dated 18.01.1977 and this proves that a false statement was made in the affidavit with regard to the date of knowledge of the order dated 18.01.1977. The appeal consequently stood rejected. The petitioner gave challenge to the Judgment dated 19.08.1982 before the Board of Revenue under Rule 23(2) of the Rules of 1975, that too came to be rejected by the Judgment impugned dated 12.04.1989. A review petition preferred thereafter too was rejected by the Board vide order dated 24.07.1997, hence, this petition is filed. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is the position admitted that the petitioner submitted an application on 04.03.1980 to obtain a certified copy of the order dated 20.01.1977, but in the affidavit annexed with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, he made a false statement to the effect that he came to know about the order dated 18.01.1977 on 02.09.1980. The petitioner admittedly made a false statement in the affidavit and no justification is given in this regard by the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly made a false statement in the affidavit and no justification is given in this regard by the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, dis-entitles him from getting any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I also do not find any error in the orders impugned warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition having no merit, the same is, therefore, dismissed. 6. No order as to costs.