Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 344 (RAJ)

Pramod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.6.1997 (Annex.6) passed by the Board of Revenue and the order dated 16.8.1997 (Annex.5) passed by the Additional Collector, Hanumangarh and has further prayed for restraining the respondents No. 1 to 3 from dispossessing the petitioners from the lands of Square No. 101/272, 102/272 and 101/273 of Chak 4 STG of Tehsil Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh. 2. The case set up by the petitioners in these writ petitions is this that the respondents No. 4 to 8 were the khatedars of land measuring about 62 bighas in Chak No. 6 GGR and 8 GGR of village Tibbi and the said land of the respondents No. 4 to 8 was acquired for abadi purposes in the year 1961-62. The respondents No. 4 to 8 have sold 20 bighas of the land of chak 6 GGR to Jalawar Singh and 21 bighas from Sawant Singh vide registered sale deeds dated 21.3.1968. Later on the respondents No. 4 to 8 applied before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar for exchange of lands of chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR and the Collector Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 19.4.1968 allowed 44 bighas of land of Chak 4 STG to be allotted in the name of respondents No. 4 to 8. 3. The petitioner Pramod Kumar (SBCWP No. 3912/1997) purchased some land of Chak 4 STG from the respondents No. 4 to 8 through registered sale deed dated 14.6.1991. 4. However, the petitioner Balu Ram (SBCWP No. 3913/1997) and Gopi Ram (SBCWP No. 3914/1997) had purchased 5 and 51/2 bighas land of chak 4 STG from Sawant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 8.7.1969. The petitioner Mahaveer (SBCWP No. 3915/1997) has purchased 8 bighas of land from one Saheb Ram on 1.6.1982. All the petitioners claimed themselves as Khatedar tenants of lands falling in Chak 4 STG. 5. On 16.8.1997, the Additional Collector, Hanumangarh has passed the order and directed the Tehsildar (Revenue) Hanumangarh to take over the possession of the land of square 101/272 of chak 4 STG. All the petitioners claimed themselves as Khatedar tenants of lands falling in Chak 4 STG. 5. On 16.8.1997, the Additional Collector, Hanumangarh has passed the order and directed the Tehsildar (Revenue) Hanumangarh to take over the possession of the land of square 101/272 of chak 4 STG. The Additional Collector, Hanumangarh passed the order dated 16.8.1997 in pursuance of order dated 30.6.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue while accepting the reference made on behalf of the State Government, the Board of Revenue has cancelled the order dated 19.4.1968 whereby the land of Chak 4 STG were allotted to the respondents No. 4 to 8. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 30.6.1997 and 16.8.1997, the petitioners have preferred the aforesaid writ petitions. 6. It is stated in all these writ petitions that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 30.6.1997 is absolutely without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law being against the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioners were recorded khatedars of the lands and, therefore, they should have been given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 30.6.1997. It is further stated that the Board of Revenue has also committed illegality in not issuing any notice to the respondents No. 4 to 8 before passing of the order dated 30.6.1997 and, therefore, also the order of the Board of Revenue is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondents No. 4 to 8 had no authority to make any transfer vide registered sale deed dated 21.3.1968 either in favour of Jalawar Singh or in favour of Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh. It is contended that on the basis of said sale deeds, no rights have accrued in favour of Jalawar Singh or Savant Singh and those sale deeds dated 21.3.1968 were absolutely void and did not confer any interest to Jalawar Singh or Savant Singh. It is contended that the Board of Revenue should have ignored the sale deed dated 21.3.1968 because the right of respondents No. 4 to 8 of claiming exchange in lieu of the land of chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR, cannot be refused because their lands in chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR were acquired. It is contended that the Board of Revenue should have ignored the sale deed dated 21.3.1968 because the right of respondents No. 4 to 8 of claiming exchange in lieu of the land of chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR, cannot be refused because their lands in chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR were acquired. It is further claimed that there is no illegality in the order dated 19.4.1968 whereby the lands of chak 4 STG were allotted to the respondents No. 4 to 8 by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the Board of Revenue has illegally cancelled the exchange order dated 19.4.1968 without considering the important facts. It is also claimed that the Board of Revenue has accepted the reference after expiry of a long delay whereas the power of reference could be exercised by the Board of Revenue within a reasonable time and as such the order passed by the Board of Revenue suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and, therefore, same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. It is further claimed on behalf of the petitioners that even the Additional Collector before passing of the order dated 16.8.1997 has not given any notice to the petitioners and, therefore, the order dated 16.8.1997 passed by the Additional Collector, Hanumangarh is also violative of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. It is further contended by the petitioners in the writ petitions that they are in possession of the land for last so many years and, therefore, they could not be dispossessed by summary process and can only be dispossessed by due process of law provided in the law. 9. 8. It is further contended by the petitioners in the writ petitions that they are in possession of the land for last so many years and, therefore, they could not be dispossessed by summary process and can only be dispossessed by due process of law provided in the law. 9. Reply to the writ petition was preferred on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and it is contended that the respondents No. 4 to 8 have got the allotment of 44 bighas of land of chak 4 STG vide order dated 19.4.1968 by concealing the fact that they have already sold the land of chak 6 GGR, in lieu of which they have claimed exchange and, therefore, they have no right to claim exchange, however, without disclosing this fact they have represented before the District Collector and got the allotment of land of chak 4 STG in their favour and the action of the respondents No. 4 to 8 is, therefore, suffering from fraud and mis-representation and the allotment of land made in their favour vide order dated 19.4.1968 cannot be sustained. It is further contended by the respondents in their reply to the writ petition that the petitioners cannot claim any right simply because they have purchased the land from the respondent No. 4 to 8 or from the persons, who have earlier purchased the land from the respondents No. 4 to 8 because the respondents No. 4 to 8 have no right of allotment of land of chak 4 STG. 10. It is further stated in the reply that no notice is required to be given to the petitioners or respondents No. 4 to 8 before passing of the order dated 30.6.1997 because the respondents No. 4 to 8 have obtained the allotment of land while practicing fraud and misrepresentation. 11. 10. It is further stated in the reply that no notice is required to be given to the petitioners or respondents No. 4 to 8 before passing of the order dated 30.6.1997 because the respondents No. 4 to 8 have obtained the allotment of land while practicing fraud and misrepresentation. 11. It is further claimed by the respondents in the reply that the Additional District Collector, Hanumangarh while making reference to the Board of Revenue has issued notice to the respondents No. 4 to 8 and the respondents No. 4 to 8 have specifically given in writing before the Additional Collector, Hanumangarh that they have already sold the lands of chak 6 GGR to different persons vide registered sale deed dated 21.3.1968 and they had never demanded any land in exchange from State Government nor they had ever appointed any person as their power of attorney and has claimed that the exchange order dated 19.4.1968 has not been issued on their demand or request. It is contended by the respondents in the reply to the writ petition that in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents No. 4 to 8 before the Additional Collector, Hanumangarh, the only option available with the Board of Revenue is to quash the order dated 19.4.1968 and by quashing the order dated 19.4.1968, the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality. 12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. J.L. Purohit assisted by Mr. N.R. Budhania has reiterated the contention raised in the writ petition and has claimed that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 30.6.1997 and the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 16.8.1997 are violative of the principles of natural justice, as before passing of the said orders, the Board of Revenue and the Additional Collector has not given any notice to the petitioners, who are the khatedar-tenants of the lands falling in chak 4 STG. It is also contended that even the other respondents have also not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the orders impugned, therefore, the orders impugned are violative of principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Canara Bank & others v. Debasis Das and others, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557 . 13. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Canara Bank & others v. Debasis Das and others, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557 . 13. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Board of Revenue has exercised the power, vested in it by virtue of Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, after inordinate delay and, therefore, also the order dated 30.6.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered by this Court in Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in RLR 1995 (1) 555 & State of Rajasthan v. Teja & Ors., reported in DNJ (Raj) 2005 (1) p.162 . 14. I have considered the arguments advanced and also through examined the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as reply to the writ petition. 15. The facts emerges out from the said documents are as under:- The respondents No. 4 to 8 are the khatedar-tenants of 62 bighas of land of chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR of village Tibbi. The respondents No. 4 to 8 have sold 20 bighas of land of Chak 6 GGR to one Jalawar Singh vide registered sale deed 21.3.1968. Similarly 21 bighas of land of chak 6 GGR has also been sold by the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide registered sale deed dated 21.3.1968 to one Savant singh S/o Sharvan Singh (one of the respondents in writ petitions No. 3913/1997 and 3914/1997). On the application preferred on behalf of the respondents No. 4 to 8, the District Collector has allotted 46 bighas and 10 biswas of land to the respondents No. 4 to 8 falling in Murabba No. 102/272, 101/273, 202/273, 101/274, 101/275 and 105/275 situated in Chak 4 STG & 5 SNM, Tehsil Hanumangarh vide order dated 19.4.1968. It is pertinent to note here that the allotment made in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide order dated 19.4.1968 was done in lieu of the land held by the respondents No. 4 to 8 at Chak 6GGR and 8 GGR of village Tibbi. It is pertinent to note here that the allotment made in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide order dated 19.4.1968 was done in lieu of the land held by the respondents No. 4 to 8 at Chak 6GGR and 8 GGR of village Tibbi. However, at the time of allotment, the fact that the respondents No. 4 to 8 had already sold the land of Chak 6 GGR to other persons vide registered sale deeds dated 21.3.1968, has not brought into the notice of the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. Immediately after allotment, the Tehsildar Tibbi has moved a review application on 25.4.1968 before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar for cancellation of the allotment order dated 19.4.1968. However, surprisingly the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar has rejected the said review application while holding that the rights of the respondents No. 4 to 8 have not been extinguished by selling the acquired land and, therefore, the allotment is perfectly legal. It is also observed by the Addl. Collector that as the land of Chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR has been acquired by the Government and there is no provision of review in the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the review application preferred by the Tehsildar for reviewing the order dated 19.4.1968 is not maintainable. 16. The State Government has constituted Beri Commission under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. B.P. Beri, Retd. Chief Justice of of this Court and made a complaint against the allotment of respondents No. 4 to 8 dated 19.4.1968. The Beri Commission conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted its recommendation as under:- "The result is that I recommend to the Government that the 46 bighas and 10 biswas of land in Chak No. 4 STG and Chak 5 SNM, situated in Tehsil Hanumangarh be resumed and the transferees of the land sold by these five persons may be suitably dealt with if and when they make any application to the Government. CHAIRMAN" 17. The copy of the report of Berri Commission is available on record as Annexure R/4. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Beri Commission, the State Government has referred the matter of allotment of land to the respondents No. 4 to 8 to the District Collector, who in turn referred the matter to the District Collector, Hanumangarh. CHAIRMAN" 17. The copy of the report of Berri Commission is available on record as Annexure R/4. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Beri Commission, the State Government has referred the matter of allotment of land to the respondents No. 4 to 8 to the District Collector, who in turn referred the matter to the District Collector, Hanumangarh. District Collector, Hanumangarh has issued notices to the respondents No. 4 to 8 and their power of attorney for making a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The respondents No. 4 to 8 have submitted their written reply before the District Collector, Hanumangarh and has specifically contended that they have already sold the land held by them at Chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR of village Tibbi vide registered sale deeds dated 21.3.1968 and they had never requested for allotment of land of Chak 4 STG before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar in lieu of the land earlier held by them in Chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR. It is also contended by the respondents No. 4 to 8 before the District Collector, Hanumangarh that they have also not appointed any person as their power of attorney and any action taken on behalf of their alleged power of attorney is without any authority and has been done with the intention to play fraud upon the State Government. However, the alleged power of attorney holder of respondents No. 4 to 8 has claimed that there is no illegality in the allotment of land of chak 4 STG vide order dated 19.4.1968. The District Collector vide order dated 29.2.1996 has made reference to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 30.6.1997 has accepted the reference and has quashed the allotment order dated 19.4.1968 made in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 8 for the lands situated in different Muraba numbers of chak 4 STG and Chak 5 SNM. In pursuance of the order dated 30.6.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue, the Additional District Collector, Hanumangarh vide order dated 16.8.1997 has directed the Tehsildar to take the possession of the land of Chak 4 STG allotted to the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide order dated 19.4.1968. 18. In pursuance of the order dated 30.6.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue, the Additional District Collector, Hanumangarh vide order dated 16.8.1997 has directed the Tehsildar to take the possession of the land of Chak 4 STG allotted to the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide order dated 19.4.1968. 18. It is pertinent to note here that the writ petitioner Promod in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3912/1997 has purchased the land of Chak 4 STG from the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide registered sale deed dated 14.6.1991. The petitioners Balu Ram and Gopi Ram of writ petition Nos.3913/1997 and 3914/1997 have purchased the land of 4 STG from Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh on 8.7.1969. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioners Balu Ram and Gopi Ram that Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh has purchased the land of Chak 6 GGR from the respondents No. 4 to 8 on 21.3.1968. 19. It is very interesting to note that when Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh has purchased the land of Chak 6 GGR of village Tibbi from respondents No. 4 to 8, how he can sell the land of Chak 4 STG to the petitioners Balu Ram and Gopi Ram. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners Balu Ram and Gopi Ram in their writ petitions have specifically averred that Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh had got no right in land sold to him by the respondents No. 4 to 8 on 21.3.1968. The relevant portion of the writ petition No. 3913/97 and 3914/97 are quoted here in below:- "3. That the respondents No. 4 to 8 executed a transfer deed dated 21.03.1968 in favour of the respondent No. 9 transferring 21 bighas of the lands out of the lands in Square Nos.200/281, 201/282 and 200/282 in Chak 8 GGR. A copy of the transfer deed dated 21.3.1968 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-1. ........ ........ ........ 5. That the lands in Chaks 6 GGR and 8 GGR became Government property after acquisition and the respondents No. 4 to 8 had only a right to obtain compensation against the same. The respondents No. 4 to 8 had no right to transfer the lands after acquisition in favour of the respondent No. 9. The transfer deed itself had not the effect of transferring the lands in Chak 8 GGR in favour of the respondent No. 9. The respondents No. 4 to 8 had no right to transfer the lands after acquisition in favour of the respondent No. 9. The transfer deed itself had not the effect of transferring the lands in Chak 8 GGR in favour of the respondent No. 9. ........ ........ ........ 8. That 151/2 Bighas of the lands were mutated in the name of the respondent No. 9 on the basis of the sale deed executed by the respondents No. 4 to 8." 20. The petitioners Balu Ram and Gopi Ram are claiming that the respondents No. 4 to 8 had no right to transfer the land of chak 6 GGR in favour of Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh after its acquisition and said transfer will not create any right in favour of Savant Singh then how the petitioners can claim any right over the land of Chak 4 STG through the respondent No. 9. In para 8 of the above writ petitions No. 3913/1997 and 3914/1997, the petitioners have stated that 15 and half bighas of land of chak 4 STG wee mutated in the name of respondents No. 9 on the basis of sale deed executed by respondents No. 4 to 8 but it is not clear that how the land of 4 STG can be mutated in favour of the respondent No. 9 on the basis of sale deed executed by the respondents No. 4 to 8 for the land of Chak 6 GGR of village Tibbi. These facts show that the transfers of land made by Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh in favour of the petitioners Balu Ram and Gopi Ram are irregular and cannot be recognised on account of missing of chain of events. 21. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3915/1997, the petitioner Mahaveer has claimed that he has purchased the land of Chak 4 STG from one Saheb Ram vide registered sale deed dated 1.6.1982. The petitioner Mahaveer is claiming that the land purchased by him on 1.6.1982 is the part of land which was allotted to the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide order dated 19.4.1968. The petitioner Mahaveer is claiming that the land purchased by him on 1.6.1982 is the part of land which was allotted to the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide order dated 19.4.1968. It is to be noted that the petitioner Mahaveer of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3915/1997 has failed to place any material on record to show that the land of chak 4 STG allotted to respondents No. 4 to 8 vide order dated 19.4.1968 have been mutated in favour of Saheb Ram from whom the petitioner has purchased the lands of Chak 4 STG vide registered sale deed dated 1.6.1982. In absence of any such material on record, it can very well be presumed that the transfer of the land by Saheb Ram, in favour of petitioner Mahaveer is not bonafide and such transfer also cannot be recognized. 22. It is also important to note that before the District Collector, Hanumangarh, the respondents No. 4 to 8 in their written reply has categorically stated that they have sold the land held by them in Chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR vide registered sale deed dated 21.3.1968 to Jalawar Singh and Savant Singh and they have never applied for allotment of land in lieu of the lands held by them in chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR of village Tibbi. It is also categorically stated by the respondents No. 4 to 8 in their written statements that they have never appointed any person as their power of attorney and whatever done by the alleged power of attorney holder and whatever action taken by the alleged power of attorney holder was unauthorized and taken with the intention to play fraud on the State Government. From perusal of application available on record as Annex.R/1, said to have been moved on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 8, it is clear that the same has been moved through power of attorney Atma Singh and not by the respondents No. 4 to 8 themselves. 23. Be that as it may, from the above facts, it is clear that there was a gross violation in issuance of allotment order dated 19.4.1968 in favour of respondents No. 4 to 8 and it is also clear that the same has been obtained by mis-representation and playing fraud upon the State Government. 24. 23. Be that as it may, from the above facts, it is clear that there was a gross violation in issuance of allotment order dated 19.4.1968 in favour of respondents No. 4 to 8 and it is also clear that the same has been obtained by mis-representation and playing fraud upon the State Government. 24. During the course of arguments, an opportunity was given to the counsel for the petitioners to justify the allotment of the land made in favour of respondents No. 4 to 8 looking to the facts that that the respondents No. 4 to 8 has denied the factum of moving an application for allotment of land of Chak 4 STG. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that even if the respondents No. 4 to 8 have sold their lands held by them in Chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR of village Tibbi vide registered sale deed dated 21.3.1968, their right for claiming the land in exchange cannot be extinguished as the land was acquired by the State Government for abadi purposes. 25. I have considered this argument of learned counsel for petitioners but found that the same is liable to be rejected as when the respondent No. 4 to 8 have lost their title over the land of Chak 6 GGR and 8 GGR of village Tibbi by selling it to some other persons then in no circumstances the respondents No. 4 to 8 had a right to claim any other land in lieu of land already sold. 26. So far as the contention of the petitioners regarding that they have not been provided any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 30.6.1997 and the order dated 19.6.1997 is concerned, it is submitted that the alleged original allotment of the land of Chak 4 STG in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 8 is found illegal and erroneous, then no rights have been created in favour of the petitioners and they were not required to be heard by the Board of Revenue or by the Additional Collector. It is also pertinent to note here that except petitioner Promod of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3912/1997, all other petitioners have not purchased the land of Chak 4 STG directly from the respondent No. 4 to 8 but they have purchased the lands from the persons to whom the lands of Chak 4 STG was never allotted. The petitioners Balu Ram and Gopi Ram of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3913/1997 and 3914/1997 respectively have contended that they have purchased the land of Chak 4 STG from one Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh (respondent No. 9 in their writ petitions), however, it is clear from the record that Savant Singh S/o Shri Sharvan Singh has only purchased the land from the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide registered sale deed falling in chak 6 GGR of village Tibbi and there is no material available on record to indicate that Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh, respondent No. 9 has ever purchased any such land of chak 4 STG from respondents No. 4 to 8 or the land of Chak 4 STG was allotted to him by any authority. Moreover in the S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3913/1997 and 3914/1997 itself the petitioners Balu Ram and Gopi Ram are claiming that the transfer for land of Chak 6 GGR in favour of Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh is void and no right is accrued in favour of Savant Singh on account of the said transfers then I fail to understand how petitioners can justify the sale deed executed in their favour by Savant Singh S/o Sharvan Singh when as per their own averment no right has been accrued to Savant Singh. In the case of Mahaveer, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3915/1997, there is no material available on record to suggest that Saheb Ram was allotted the land of Chak 4 STG or he has purchased the land of Chak 4 STG from respondents No. 4 to 8 and, therefore, the transfer of land of chack 4 STG in favour of the petitioner Mahaveer by Saheb Ram is illegal and is not liable to be recognised on account of missing chain of event. 27. 27. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, that the order dated 30.6.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to the quashed and set aside on account of delay, is also not tenable. It is submitted that the Beri Commission constituted by the State Government to inquire into the illegalities of the land transactions has given its report to the State Government and after examining the said report, the State Government has directed the authorities concerned to act upon the said report in January 1995 and immediately thereafter the authorities initiated proceedings for reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and the District Collector, Hanumangarh has made a reference to the Board of Revenue on 29.2.1996 and the Board of Revenue has accepted the reference on 30.6.1997. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that inordinate delay has been caused by the respondents in making and accepting the reference after having knowledge of the illegalities committed in the allotment of the land in favour of respondents No. 4 to 8 vide order dated 19.4.1968. Moreover the Division Bench of this Court in case of Mangi Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1998 (1) WLC (Raj.) 625 has taken into consideration the judgment passed in Anandi Lal's case (supra) and has observed as under:- "11. It is settled law that power should be exercised within a reasonable time but what is reasonable time, is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the order which is under challenge. 12. In Anandi Lal's case (supra), this Court has simply said that revisional power should not be exercised after a long time, 'ordinarily'; meaning thereby in exceptional circumstances, the power can be exercised even after inordinate delay e.g. in a case where an order under challenge has been obtained by fraudulent practice, as such order is void and nonest. The issue of fraudulent practice will be discussed at a later stage, however, there being no terminus qua to reckone the period for the purpose of considering delay and laches, issue of delay would not arise. The issue of fraudulent practice will be discussed at a later stage, however, there being no terminus qua to reckone the period for the purpose of considering delay and laches, issue of delay would not arise. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that a case where order has been obtained by fraud etc., the power of reference can be exercised even after an inordinate or unreasonable delay, when ever it is brought to notice of the competent authority but it should not be after an unreasonable delay from the date on which the fact is brought to the notice of the authority concerned. ........ ........ ........ "19. There is another aspect of the matter. As the Khatedari rights had been acquired by Rameshwar Puri, Pujari, by playing fraud, the same cannot be recognised to have any sanctity under the law. 20. Chief Justice Edward Coke of England observed three centuries ago that "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal"quoted in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, 1994 (1) ASCC 1 , where the Supreme Court further observed as under:- "The Courts of law are meant for importing justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of loife and the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court." 21. Similarly, Loard Denning in Lazarvs Estate Limited v. Beasley, (1956) All. E.R. 341 (345) observed as under: 22. The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd., 1996 (10) SCC 520 . Similarily, in Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC 100 , Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice . such a fraudulent practice cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law.... By mere passage of time a fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity." 23. such a fraudulent practice cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law.... By mere passage of time a fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity." 23. By virtue of Sec.44 of the Evidence Act, 3ven a judgment and decree of a competent Court of law can be avoided and it also cannot operate against another party if such party successfully establishes that such a judgment has been obtained by fraud [vide Ashrafi Lal v. Smt. Koili, 1995 (4) SCC 1638 ; Bali Ram v. Gandi Mohammed Afzal, AIR 1948 PC 168 . 24. In Andhra Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Gasr Re : Rolling Mills 1994 (2) SCC 647 , the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "A Court equity when exercising its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of prevent the law from crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law." 25. Similarly in the case of State of Maharashtra and others v. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: It is responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the Social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refusing to interfering where it is against the social interest and public good." 26. Moreover, it is settled law that a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even in fraction of the rules of procedure [ Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 and M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484 ] . In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and anr. v. Mst. Katiji and ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353 , the Apex Court observed as under: "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done...." 27. Similarly in Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand, 1995 (1) SCC 242 , the Apex Court observed as under: "The object of law is to meet out justice. Right to the right, title or interest of a party in the immovable property is a substantive right. Similarly in Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand, 1995 (1) SCC 242 , the Apex Court observed as under: "The object of law is to meet out justice. Right to the right, title or interest of a party in the immovable property is a substantive right. But the right to an adjudication of the dispute in the behalf is a procedural right to which no one has a vested right. The faith of the people in the efficacy of law is the saviour and succour for the sustenance of the rule of law. Any weakening like in the judicial process would rip apart of edifice of justice and create a feeling of disillusionment in the minds of the people of the very law and courts. The rules of procedure have been devised as a channel or a means to render substantive or at best substantial justice which is the highest interest of man and almameter (sic) for the mankind. It is a foundation for orderly human relations. Equally the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice." 28. It is a plain and simple case of sabotage of public policy and legal philosophy. Tribunals should be astute in the declaration of law or in its solemn judicial review or dispensation of justice to issue directions or mandamus against the law, constitutional comments or public policy." 28. Even in Anandi Lal's case (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court has specifically held in para 25 that where fraud is alleged and public interest is shown to be suffering on account of collusion between the public officers and private parties then revisional power may be exercised even after a period of one year. 29. As observed earlier, it is clear from the material available on record that the allotment of the land of Chak 4 STG and Chak 5 SNM vide order dated 19.4.1968 has been obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation and thereafter Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality in exercising powers of reference even after delay. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surenderpal Singh v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1994 (SC) 1439 has held as under: " ......Section 221 of the Act of 1995 is not subject to the other provisions of the Act. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surenderpal Singh v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1994 (SC) 1439 has held as under: " ......Section 221 of the Act of 1995 is not subject to the other provisions of the Act. It is clear from the language of S.221 of the Act of 1955 that the Board of Revenue has general powers of superintendence and control over all revenue Courts. It is both administrative as well as judicial powers. It is open to the Board to exercise its powers of superintendence on all its subordinate Courts in order to regulate the functioning of the subordinate Courts so as to keep them within their respective spheres of jurisdiction. If the subordinate Court disregards any specific provision of law and does something illegal it is open to the Board of Revenue to interfere and set the matter right. ........" 31. In view of above, it is held that while quashing the order dated 30.6.1997, the Board of Revenue has exercised its power of superintendence in order to set the matter right and has rightly cancelled the order dated 19.4.1968. 32. In the instant case, the petitioners cannot have title better than the respondents No. 4 to 8 and the subsequent purchasers have. However, it is clear that the allotment of lands of chak 4 STG and Chak 5 SNM made in favor of the respondents No. 4 to 8, had been obtained by practising fraud and misrepresentation and in contravention of the provisions of law the same is of no consequence whatsoever and the appellants being transferrer cannot claim title better than the respondents No. 4 to 8 or subsequent purchasers have. 33. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in these writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 34. However, it is a fit case where in the interest of justice, the facts and circumstances warrant to issue appropriate directions to the District Collector, Hanumangarh to evict the petitioners from land in question forthwith, if they are in possession and resume the land of chak 4 STG and Chak 5 SNM illegally allotted to the respondents No. 4 to 8 vide order dated 19.4.1968, with the State Government. 35. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. 35. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Collector, Hanumangarh immediately for compliance and a copy of this order also be placed on record of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3658/1997 as the orders dated 30.6.1997 and 16.8.1997 are also under challenge in the said writ petition.Petition dismissed. *******