1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2648/2009 (Pratap Singh Vs. B.O.R. & Ors.) Date of order : 01.04.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Sajjan Singh, for the petitioner. In this writ petition,the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned judgment dated 9.2.2009 (Annexure-5) passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the judgment dated 21.4.1994 Annexure-2 passed by the Collector, Bikaner and further it is prayed that allotment order dated 20.1.1977 whereby the land in question allotted in favor of respondent No.1 may be cancelled. According to the facts, the respondent Jetha Ram was allotted 15 bighas of land vide allotment order dated 20.1.1977 and as per the petitioner, the said allotment was obtained by concealing the material fact by the respondent Jetha Ram, therefore, a complaint was filed against the said allotment. Upon the said compliant, a case under Section 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules of 1975 was registered and after hearing both the parties, the Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner made an order for cancellation of the allotment on 14.3.1990. A 2 revision petition was filed against the said order by respondent Jetha Ram and vide judgment dated 29.12.1992, the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Colonization, Biknaer whereby the allotment made in favor of respondent Jetha Ram was cancelled and an order was made to re-enquire the matter and for that purpose the case was remitted to the Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner. As per the petitioner in view of the jurisdictional changes, the matter was heard by Collector, Bikaner who vide its judgment dated 21.4.1994 gave its finding that the State has failed to prove the statement with regard to illegal allotment of land in question and intacted the allotment order made in favor of the respondent No.1 dated 20.1.1977. The petitioner's contention is that he was not party in the aforesaid proceedings, hence, he was having no knowledge about the order dated 21.4.1994 passed by the District Collector, therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 23 (2) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules of 1975 before the Board of Revenue with an application for condonation of delay. Learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 9.2.2009 which is under challenge in this writ petition. The contention of learned counsel for the 3 petitioner is that the Board of Revenue has committed an error while dismissing the revision petition only on the ground of delay. In fact, the delay will not come in the way if the allotment was made by fraud but learned Board of Revenue has not considered this aspect of the matter, which is not proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards certain judgments reported in 1998 DNJ (Raj) 534 (Amajad Ali Vs. Abdul & Ors.), 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 672 (Narayan Lal Vs. State & Ors.) and judgment reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy). While citing above judgments, it is submitted that learned Board of Revenue ought to have condoned the delay because initially allotment was made in favor of the respondent No.1 illegally because the respondent No.1 obtained allotment by concealing material facts, so also while committing fraud, therefore, the matter was to be decided by the Board of Revenue on merit but the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay only. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for relief sought for in this writ petition. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all, the conduct of the petitioner is required to be seen. In this writ petition, in para No.5, following 4 assertion has been made by the petitioner : “That since the petitioner was not party to the matter pending before the learned Collector, Bikaner for an against the so called allotment in favor of the respondent Jetha Ram, therefore, he was not having any knowledge about the passing of the judgment dated 21.4.1994. First time, the fact of passing of the judgment dated 21.4.94 was came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 11.4.2007 during the course of arguments were advanced on the stay petition in the appear filed by the petitioner int he court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner when the counsel for the respondent Shri Metharam showed the said judgment to the Revenue Appellate Authority.” Upon perusal of above assertion made in para No.5 of the writ petition, it is obvious that the petitioner has tried to satisfy this Court that for the first time, the fact of passing of the judgment dated 21.4.1994 by the District Collector, Bikaner came into his knowledge on 11.4.2007 but this assertion is totally false because in para No.10 of the impugned order, the Board of Revenue has considered the said contention raised by the petitioner and while discussing the contention of the petitioner it is specifically observed that the petitioner has filed a regular suit against the non-petitioner for declaration of his khatedari rights. In that suit, the non-petitioner – Jetha Ram filed his written statement on 11.10.1995 in which it was expressly stated at Para No.15 of the written statement that the said land was duly allotted to him and his allotment was upheld by District Collector, Bikaner by 5 judgment dated 21.4.1994. The same judgment which is under challenge in the revision petition. The Board of Revenue in view of the above facts held that the plea of the petitioner with regard to his knowledge about the impugned judgment is totally false and it is held that there is no reason to believe that the petitioner was not having knowledge of the impugned order as on 11.10.1995. Meaning thereby, the petitioner himself has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of the Court that in the suit filed by him for declaration of Khatedari rights, the non- petitioner Jetha Ram has brought to the notice of the petitioner by way of filing written statement on 10.10.1995 that the District Collector has passed an order dated 21.4.1994 whereby he has upheld the allotment of the land made in favor of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, admittedly the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.4.1994 by way of filing revision petition under Section 23 (2) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules of 1975 after delay of 13 years whereas only 60 days is provided under the Rules of 1975 to challenge the said order, therefore, in my opinion, when the respondent No.1 has filed written statement and apprised the Court with regard to the order dated 21.4.1994 on 10.10.1995 then the petitioner was having right to challenge the same within 60 days from the date of his knowledge. In this view of the matter, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable 6 upon the present set of facts. In this view of the matter, the Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay as well as on merit, which does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, there is no force in this writ petition and the judgment passed by Board of Revenue is in consonance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun