TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 14.2.1995 of Settlement Commissioner passed in appeal No. 138/93. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 Ramswaroop (deceased) filed an application before Assistant Settlement Officer Ajmer for correction of khasra No. 1966/2055 to khasra No. 1966/2063 which allegedly was the correct number in possession of Ramswaroop; but khasra No. 1966/2055 was wrongly entered in his name in the jamabandi. Assistant Settlement Officer Ajmer allowed this change from khasra No. 1966/2055 to khasra No. 1966/2063 by his impugned order dated 3.3.1990. Thereafter, the non-petitioner No. 1 Parmeshwar Lal filed an application before Assistant Settlement Officer Ajmer against the impugned order dated 3.3.1990 stating that he was in possession of the disputed land and the said correction was made illegally. This application was rejected by Assistant Settlement Officer vide his impugned order dated 29.8.1990. The non-petitioner challenged both the orders dated 3.3.1990 and 29.8.1990 of Assistant Settlement Officer Ajmer in first appeal under Section 75 of the Act before Settlement Officer Ajmer who allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders dated 3.3.1990 and 29.8.1990 of Assistant Settlement Officer vide his judgment dated 18.12.1990 which was challenged in second appeal by the petitioner before Settlement Commissioner who dismissed the appeal by his impugned judgment dated 14.2.1995 aggrieved against which the instant revision is filed in this court. 3. The petitioner also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) for production of a judgment dated 10.3.09 of this court passed in Revision/26/08/LR/Ajmer entitled `Geeta Devi vs. State.' 4. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputed land earlier bore khasra No. 824 which was converted to new khasra No. 1966.This khasra No. 1966 was a big chunk of land in which twenty six persons were allotted lands on 26.9.1971 and the petitioner No. 2 Ramswaroop was also one of these twenty six allottees. Ramswaroop was also given khatedari right in this land on 5.5.1988. Though the petitioner Ramswaroop had possession on khasra No. 1966/2063 but in record khasra No. 1966/2055 was shown in his name wrongly. Ramswaroop was also given khatedari right in this land on 5.5.1988. Though the petitioner Ramswaroop had possession on khasra No. 1966/2063 but in record khasra No. 1966/2055 was shown in his name wrongly. So, to correct the record he filed an application under Section 136 of the Act before Assistant Settlement Officer for correction of record and changing of khasra 1966/2055 to khasra No. 1966/2063 according to actual position on the site. This application was rightly allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer; but both Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner committed illegality in holding that the correction was wrongly made by the Assistant Settlement Officer. It was also contended that the disputed land was sold by Ramswaroop to petitioner No. 2 Chhota Devi who had come in the foot step of Ramswaroop who was the khatedar tenant of the disputed land. It was also contended that this court in exercise of its power under Section 9 of the Act passed a judgment dated 10.3.08 with regard to the same disputed land holding that Ramswaroop was the original allottee of the land and the mutation No. 253 dated 22.2.1991 by which khatedari right of Ramswaroop was cancelled and the land was recorded as siwai chak was set aside. Also the wife of deceased Ramswaroop -Geeta Devi- was declared as a khatedar tenant and injunction was granted in her favour. Lest there should be two contradictory and conflicting judgments by the same court, it was pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners to take this judgment dated 10.3.08 of the Board of Revenue on record. The learned counsel prayed for setting aside of the judgments of both the courts below. 6. Strongly opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 contended that the deceased petitioner (Ramswaroop) was allotted the land in khasra No. 1966/2055 only. The disputed land bearing khasra No. 1966/2063 is a government land on which the non-petitioner No. 1 had possession due to which he was receiving the notices from Tehsidar under Section 91 of the Act. It was contended that Ramswaroop sold only his allotted land to Chhota Devi, so she became tenant of khasra No. 1966/2055 only and not of khasra No. 1966/2063. It was contended that Ramswaroop sold only his allotted land to Chhota Devi, so she became tenant of khasra No. 1966/2055 only and not of khasra No. 1966/2063. It was also contended that Settlement Officer had carried out side inspection of the disputed land and found that it was a government land where pump sets of P.H.E.D. were installed. It was also submitted that the sale was made in 1989 and thereafter Ramswaroop died in 2003. Thus, the khatedari right of Ramswaroop stood extinguished after the sale; but strangely the wife of Ramswaroop- Geeta Devi- filed an application under Section 9 and section 84 of the Act in the Board of Revenue; and even though this revision petition with regard to the same land between the same parties was still pending, the Single Bench of the Board allowed the application of Section 9 of the Act vide its judgment dated 10.3.08; but the fact of the judgments of Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner with regard to the same disputed land as also the fact of revision petition being pending in the Board were deliberately concealed from the Board of Revenue and the judgment dated 10.3.08 was fraudulently procured concealing the material facts from the Board of Revenue. Thus, the effect of this judgment dated 10.3.08 is void. 7. Vehemently opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate contended that the impugned judgment dated 10.3.08 was procured by the concealment of the facts that a revision petition about the same disputed land was still pending before the Board of Revenue. When Ramswaroop had sold the land to Chhota Devi in 1989, the right of Geeta Devi as wife of Ramswaroop was extinguished consequent upon the sale in1989 only. In the year 2008 Geeta Devi had no locus to file application under Section 9 of the Act. It was also submitted that no evidence was produced before the court showing that Ramswaroop was the allottee of the disputed land, so restoration of a non-existing allotment vide judgment dated 10.3.08 in the name of Ramswaroop and subsequently to his wife Geeta Devi was ex-facia illegal and should be ignored. Both Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner have given concurrent judgments which do not require any intervention in revision. 8. Both Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner have given concurrent judgments which do not require any intervention in revision. 8. Before proceeding to deal with the present dispute I would like to take on record the judgment dated 10.3.08 of this court which is sought to be produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Thus, this application under Order 41Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CC is allowed and this judgment dated 10.3.08 is taken on record. The learned opposite counsel does not want to produce any document in rebuttal. 9. It is evident from the record of Assistant Settlement Officer Ajmer that the deceased Ramswaroop (petitioner No. 1) made an application before him for changing khasra No. 1966/2055 entered in his name to khasra No. 1966/2063 on the ground that he was in physical possession of khasra No. deceased petitioner Ramswaroop. Settlement Commissioner has concurred in the judgment dated 18.12.1990 of Settlement Officer. I do not find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment of Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner. 10. Perusal of the judgment dated 10.3.08 of this court shows that an application under Section 9 read with section 84 of the Act was allowed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Revision/26/08/ LR/Ajmer. While filing the application under Section 9 of the Act it was not revealed to the learned Single Bench that the present revision petition was already pending in this court with regard to the same disputed land between the same parties. Very discreetly, albeit, craftily the deceased Ramswaroop was deleted as a petitioner after his death in this revision petition which was filed way back in 1995; and thereafter wife of Ramswaroop, Geeta Devi shrewdly filed an application under Section 9 of the Act in the year 2008 impleading Tehsildar Ajmer only, excluding the present non-petitioner No. 1 Parmeshwar; whereas she should have got herself impleaded as legal representative of the deceased Ramswaroop instead of getting his name deleted. 11. It is admitted by the petitioner that Ramswaroop had sold the disputed land to Chhota Devi, the petitioner No. 2 in the year 1989. 11. It is admitted by the petitioner that Ramswaroop had sold the disputed land to Chhota Devi, the petitioner No. 2 in the year 1989. Once the deceased Ramswaroop had sold his khatedari land to the petitioner No. 2 in the year 1989, his wife Geeta Devi had no right or interest in the disputed land in the year 2008 when the khatedari right of his deceased husband Ramswaroop stood extinguished way back in the year 1989 only, consequent upon the sale deed executed. Thus, Geeta Devi wife of deceased Ramswaroop did not approach the court with clean hands revealing all facts before the court. It was also concealed from the learned Single Bench of this Court that Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner had already passed judgments in appeals with regard to the same disputed land; and a revision petition was still pending in the Board of Revenue. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 10.3.08 seems to have been procured with deliberate concealment of the facts misleading the court. Thus, the judgment dated 10.3.08 is `Per Incurium' having no effect and bearing on the present revision petition filed way back in the year 1995 with regard to the same controversy of the land between the same parties. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment dated 14.2.1995 of the Settlement Commissioner who has neither exceeded his jurisdiction nor committed any illegality nor any material irregularity in passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, the revision fails. 13. In the result the revision is dismissed. Pronounced.