Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1812 (RAJ)

Imamdin S/o Hoti Khan v. Abdul S/o Ilane Khan

2025-11-19

NUPUR BHATI

body2025
ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (Annex.1) passed in Review Petition, the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 (Annex.2) passed by the Board of Revenue and the impugned order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3), may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside. Any other relief to which petitioner appears entitle to may kindly be also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 had submitted an application on 14.03.1955 for allotment of land in the Canal Area. On the basis of the said application, the competent authority allotted 24 bigha 5 biswa command land in Chak No. K.L.S.M. 3/61, Murabba No. 1 to 25/241 vide order dated 08.01.1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the disputed land”). Possession of the land was handed over to Respondent No. 1 and a Khatedari Sanad was also issued in his favour. After that, the petitioner purchased the disputed land from Respondent No. 1 through a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2010 (Annex.6) and since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the land. 3. The petitioner has been irrigating the land and regularly paying charges to the Water Resources Department. Thereafter, one Sumar S/o Aarab Khan filed a complaint alleging that Respondent No. 1 had obtained the allotment by concealing material facts. Based on the said complaint, the District Collector, Barmer ordered an enquiry through the SDO, Shiv, pursuant thereto, an application under Rule 22(3) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (Rules of 1975) was filed before the Additional Colonisation Commissioner, Jaisalmer, although the application (Annex.7) itself admitted that the disputed land had been sold to the petitioner and that the petitioner was in possession, no notice was ever issued to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner nevertheless appeared voluntarily and submitted a copy of the sale deed. The learned Additional Colonisation Commissioner, Jaisalmer, without supplying the petitioner either the enquiry report or a copy of the complaint, passed the order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3), declaring the original allotment order dated 08.01.1991 as illegal and cancelling all consequential proceedings, including the petitioner’s registered sale deed. 5. The petitioner nevertheless appeared voluntarily and submitted a copy of the sale deed. The learned Additional Colonisation Commissioner, Jaisalmer, without supplying the petitioner either the enquiry report or a copy of the complaint, passed the order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3), declaring the original allotment order dated 08.01.1991 as illegal and cancelling all consequential proceedings, including the petitioner’s registered sale deed. 5. The petitioner, having never been served with notice, remained unaware of the said order and therefore could not challenge it. After that Respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3) by filing a Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue. In the Revision Petition, the petitioner was arrayed only as a proforma party and no notice was issued to him. The Revision Petition was dismissed on 18.01.2019 (Annex.2) on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had no subsisting interest in the land after its sale to the petitioner. That Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a Review Petition before the Board of Revenue, once again impleading the petitioner only as a proforma party and no notice was issued to the petitioner in the Review Petition, which ultimately came to be dismissed on 04.09.2025 (Annex.1). 6 Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the said land through a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2010 (Annex.6), and since then has been in continuous and lawful possession, cultivating and irrigating the land and regularly paying water charges. 7. He further submits that based on a complaint filed by Sumar S/o Aarab Khan, an enquiry was initiated by the District Collector, Barmer and an application under Rule 22(3) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules, 1975 was made to the Additional Colonisation Commissioner, wherein it was acknowledged that the land stood sold to and was in the possession of the petitioner. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner at any stage, and yet, the Additional Colonisation Commissioner, by order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3), cancelled the original allotment of Respondent No. 1 and also cancelled the petitioner’s registered sale deed without supplying the enquiry report or the complaint and without affording the petitioner any hearing. Subsequent to the above, Respondent No. 1 filed a Revision Petition and thereafter a Review Petition before the Board of Revenue; in both proceedings, the petitioner was impleaded only as a proforma party, with no notice issued to him. Subsequent to the above, Respondent No. 1 filed a Revision Petition and thereafter a Review Petition before the Board of Revenue; in both proceedings, the petitioner was impleaded only as a proforma party, with no notice issued to him. The Revision Petition was dismissed on 18.01.2019 (Annex.2), and the Review Petition was dismissed on 04.09.2025 (Annex.1). 9. He thus submits that the revenue courts committed errors of law and fact by proceeding without issuing notice to the petitioner, despite being fully aware that the petitioner was both the purchaser and in possession of the disputed land. He further submits that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1975, which merely authorize cancellation of an allotment if necessary, however, the Additional Colonisation Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by cancelling the petitioner’s registered sale deed, an action wholly beyond his authority, which was not corrected by the Board of Revenue. He submits that the impugned order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3) was passed solely on the basis of an enquiry report of the SDO, Shiv, which, along with the complaint and its findings, was never supplied to the petitioner, and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the enquiry officer. He submits that the cancellation of his registered sale deed, effected without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, has caused him substantial prejudice. Accordingly, he contends that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In light of these facts and circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 10. I have heard the counsel of the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 11. This Court finds that the Additional Colonisation Commissioner, in the order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3), undertook a thorough evaluation of the SDO’s enquiry report, the documentary material, and statements of the complainant and the allottee that is Respondent No. 1. The authority recorded clear findings that the original allotment in favour of Respondent No. 1 was procured by misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, and fraudulent procurement of dual ration cards, job cards, and voter entries. It was also found that the allottee was neither a resident of village Basanpir nor landless, thereby rendering him ineligible for allotment under the 1975 Rules. 12. It was also found that the allottee was neither a resident of village Basanpir nor landless, thereby rendering him ineligible for allotment under the 1975 Rules. 12. This Court finds that the competent authority rightly held the original allotment to be ab initio void, and consequently all subsequent proceedings - issuance of Khatedari Sanad, mutation entries, the registered sale deed executed in favour of the present petitioner, and the mortgage entries—automatically stood vitiated. The authority further noticed that the sale deed dated 04.06.2010 had been executed prior to the sanction of Khatedari mutation on 11.06.2010, thereby having no legal validity. These findings rested on unimpeachable material, including cancelled ration cards, dual voter entries, NREGA records, and land entries showing possession over agricultural land in Fatehpura. 13. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue, while deciding the revision on 18.01.2019 (Annex.2), independently re-evaluated the entire record and affirmed the findings of the Additional Colonisation Commissioner. The Revisional Court held that the enquiry before the Lokayukt clearly established that the allotment had been obtained by fraud. It also found that the allottee had already sold the entire land and mutation had been duly sanctioned in favour of the present Petitioner, leaving the allottee with no subsisting interest to maintain the revision. 14. This Court finds that the review petition was rightly dismissed on 04.09.2025 (Annex.1) on the settled principle that review jurisdiction is limited to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. The Reviewing Authority held that no such error was shown and reiterated that the findings of fraud, misrepresentation, and invalidity of the allotment had already been upheld on merits. 15. This Court finds that the cumulative effect of the concurrent findings establishes that the original allotment was obtained through fraudulent means. It is a settled principle of law that fraud vitiates every solemn act, and therefore any subsequent assignment, transfer, sale, or mortgage based on such vitiated allotment cannot confer valid or enforceable rights. 16. This Court finds that the petitioner’s plea of violation of natural justice is devoid of merit. The petitioner claims title only through the allottee, whose very allotment has been invalidated due to fraud. Even if notice to the petitioner is assumed to be deficient, the same cannot resurrect a title that never existed in law. 16. This Court finds that the petitioner’s plea of violation of natural justice is devoid of merit. The petitioner claims title only through the allottee, whose very allotment has been invalidated due to fraud. Even if notice to the petitioner is assumed to be deficient, the same cannot resurrect a title that never existed in law. Mere possession, payment of water charges, or reliance upon derivative title cannot create legitimacy for a transaction grounded in a void allotment. 17. This Court is of the considered view that three concurrent findings of revenue courts rightly concluded that the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title had already divested himself of all rights prior to the initiation of the cancellation proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner, being merely a transferee, cannot assert a superior or independent title than that of the original allottee, in keeping with the settled principle embodied in the Latin maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” (no one can convey a better title than he himself possesses). It is, therefore, evident that the present challenge is essentially an endeavour to seek a re-appreciation of factual findings, which squarely falls beyond the permissible contours of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18. This Court finds that interference under Article 226 is justified only where findings suffer from perversity, jurisdictional error, non-consideration of material evidence, or violation of statutory provisions. The impugned orders reflect detailed reasoning, proper evaluation of evidence, adherence to statutory requirements, and cogent conclusions. The petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or legal infirmity warranting judicial review. 19. This Court finds that the consistent and reasoned conclusions recorded by the Additional Colonisation Commissioner, the Board of Revenue in revision, and the Board in review fully justify cancellation of the fraudulent allotment and the consequential nullity of the sale deed. Hence, no legal right survives in favour of the petitioner. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.