JUDGEMENT Navin Sinha and Jyoti Saran JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that the D.C.L.R. passed an ex-parte order and the Collector did not consider the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner in appeal that there was a settlement in his favour by the ex-landland lord and creation of Jamabandi. 3. We have gone through the records of the writ petition also. Before the D.C.L.R. the petitioner appeared through counsel by filing Vakalatnama and then abandoned the proceedings. No material was placed by him with regard to any settlement in his favour by the ex-landlord along with creation of Jamabandi in pursuance there of. 4. In the appeal before the Collector, the appellate orders states that despite grant of opportunity the petitioner did not produce any document to prove the settlement of the land and their title over the same. 5. A time petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner on the earlier occasion which was granted. When it was called out on the subsequent occasion no one appeared. 6. The judgment impugned is based on the premise and reasoning that theory of settlement in his favour by the ex-landlord and creation of Jamabandi were issues not raised before the D.C.L.R. and the Collector and therefore could not be raised for the first time in the writ petition. The proposition is unexceptional and the Court upholds the same. 7. Even if we were to accept the contention of the petitioner with regard to a settlement by the ex-landlord and creation of Jamabandi in his favour, that was primarily a question of fact to be placed by him before the D.C.L.R. or the Collector. The order impugned of the Appellate authority specifically states that despite opportunity to do so the petitioner did not place any such particulars. Therefore, on both counts, the reasoning given by the Single Judge as also the failure of the petitioner to lead evidence documentary in support of his claim before the Collector with no explanation being furnished before the writ Court or us as to why he did not file the necessary documents in support of his defence, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment in appeal. 8. The appeal is dismissed.