JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. The present petitioner, a purchaser from the alleged Patta holder vide Ex.1 in favour of Maqbool Ahmed and others, had purchased the suit property in question and in a suit for permanent injunction, the application filed for temporary injunction came to be dismissed by the two courts below. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.S.Purohit submitted that the land in village Karmisar in Distt. Bikaner was allotted by Gram Panchayat Karmisar in favour of predecessor in title, namely Patta No. 205 dated 30/6/1990, in favour of Maqbool Ahmed admeasuring 6825 sq.ft., Patta No. 204 in favour of Immamudin admeasuring 5807 sq.ft. and Patta No. 206 in favour of Mohd. Sharif admeasuring 6873.75 sq. ft. and by registered sale deed, the same were sold to present petitioner. When the UIT, Bikaner sought to dispossess the petitioner from the said land, the petitioner plaintiff filed suit seeking injunction against UIT, Bikaner as aforesaid, however, the learned courts below rejected the temporary injunction application. 4. Drawing the attention of the Court towards Annex.1-Patta and its receipt, learned counsel for the respondent UIT, Bikaner, Mr. Rajeev Purohit submitted that upon inquiry, the Municipal Council, Bikaner informed that said area being declared urban area, the land in question vested with UIT, Bikaner and same was transferred by Tehsildar in favour of UIT, Bikaner upon payment of Rs. 2072/- vide Annex. R/3 dated 16/11/1992 and he further pointed out vide Annex.R/1, letter dated 19/9/2008 addressed to Tehsildar, UIT, Bikaner, Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bikaner has clearly stated that aforesaid Pattas have never been issued. He, therefore, submitted that said Pattas are forged. He also pointed out that Annex.1 , Patta produced by the petitioner, the subsequent purchaser, does not bear any Patta number on it, however, the receipt (receipt No. 335 dt: 30/6/1990 for Rs. 17.10) shows that Patta no.205 was issued in favour of Maqbool Ahmed. Whether such receipt is relatable to Annex.1 Patta or not is not clear. To relate these two documents, Patta , Annex.1, ought to have borne said receipt number or Patta No. 205. 5. 17.10) shows that Patta no.205 was issued in favour of Maqbool Ahmed. Whether such receipt is relatable to Annex.1 Patta or not is not clear. To relate these two documents, Patta , Annex.1, ought to have borne said receipt number or Patta No. 205. 5. Be that as it may, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot hold any inquiry into the validity of these documents but it appears that the land in question of village Karmisar District Bikaner vested in UIT, Bikaner on 16/11/1992 upon payment of requisite amount and possession thereof was also appears to have been handed over to UIT, Bikaner on 27/7/1992 vide Annex.R/2 produced by the UIT, Biklaner. 6. In view of the above, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that courts below cannot be said to have committed any error in rejecting the temporary injunction application of the plaintiff petitioner, the subsequent purchaser. It is well settled law that subsequent purchaser could not have got better title than the predecessor in title. When the right of predecessor in title itself is in doubt and the Pattas do not relate with the Receipts and even if they relate to each other, it is a matter to be proved by way of evidence, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the courts below have erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application. 7. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 18/8/2006 and 18/3/2008 passed by the courts below and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed.Writ petition dismissed.. *******