1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 172 of 2002 JAGNNATH V/S STATE OF RAJ. & ORS Mr. BN KALLA, for the appellant. Date of Order : 4.9.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, dt. 20.3.2002, dismissing the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking to challenge the issuance of arrest warrant. Necessary facts, as appearing from the writ petition are, that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, treating him to have trespassed over the land, and order was passed under section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, on 17.2.2001, ordering his dispossession, imposing penalty, and sentencing him to civil imprisonment 2 for three months. Against that order, an appeal was filed, which was dismissed on 23.6.2001 by the Additional Collector. Then, a further appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 31.7.2001. Against this, order, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, which was partly allowed on 13.9.2001, and while maintaining the order of dispossession, and penalty, the order of civil imprisonment was set aside, on the condition, that the petitioner gives an undertaking within two months, that he will not again trespass over the land. According to the petitioner, accordingly, on 26.9.2001, he submitted the undertaking Annexure-5, informing that he relinquished possession, and undertaking that will not trespass in future. It is alleged that, thereafter on 2.3.2002, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector, being Annexure-6. A perusal of the same shows, that it is alleged that, after undertaking, he did not cultivate the land, and is not in possession, but the Patwari has prepared a wrong “Parcha Mauka” and submitted a false report, while the land was in possession of Mohan Kumhar, who cultivated the land, and name of petitioner has wrongly been mentioned therein. Thus it was prayed, that the warrant, issued against him, be recalled, and the petitioner be ordered not to be arrested. It may be noticed, that the Naib Tehsildar, vide order dt. 13.2.2002, Annexure-7 found, that the petitioner had cultivated the land, and therefore, the collector 3 ordered the warrant to be issued. This issuance of warrant was challenged in the writ petition, on the ground, that the land has been cultivated by Mohan s/o Pratap ji, and that the appellant had relinquished possession, and never trespassed thereafter. The learned Single Judge found, that the story propounded by the petitioner, about ill-will and enmity against Patwari, has no substance, rather Patwari in the course of his duties, and at the direction of the Collector, had inspected the site, and saw with his own eyes, that the land in question is still in possession of the petitioner, whose crop is standing. It was also found, that the plea, about the possession being of Mohan Kumhar, has not been supported by any evidence. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. In our view, the conclusions, arrived at by the learned Single Judge, are pure conclusions of facts, and in this appeal, except taking a bald ground, about the conclusion being wrong, no material has been placed on record, to show, that the conclusions arrived at, are incorrect. Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal thus is devoid of merit and is, therefore dismissed. Interim order dt. 1.4.2002 is vacated. Intimation be sent, for necessary action of apprehending 4 the petitioner, to serve out the sentence, to the concerned authority. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /m.asif/