S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13423/2008 Gopal @ Gopi vs State of Rajasthan Date of order- 28.01.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKAR ASOPA Mr.Ved Pal Shastri, Advocate, for the petitioner. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.9.2006 passed by the Revenue Board, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No.3662/2005/LR/Jaipur whereby the appeal filed by the State has been allowed and the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur has been set aside, further the order of Addl. Collector (Third), Jaipur was upheld and the order of cancellation of disputed allotment was also upheld and the land reverts to the State Government. While passing the order dated 1.9.2006, the Board of Revenue has observed as under: “6. Having heard the rival parties and having perused the record, I come to the following conclusion: 1. ........... 2. ............ 3.On the notice issued in the name of the respondent Bhura @ Gopi, the Sarpanch has reported that there is nobody in the village with bearing the name of this appellant. Statement of Sarpanch has been support by about half a dozen witnesses. 4.No certificate of the Gram Panchyat or Tehsildar or any other authority has been presented before us which can disprove the averments by the present Tehsildar of the Tehsil. No certificate of bonafide resident has been presented before us. As such, thee are no reason for disbelieving the averments of learned Tehsildar in absence of any affidavit by the respondent. 5.There is no satisfactory answer by the respondent regarding the absence of address on the vakalatnama. The mutation which is being defended as in the name of Gopi S/o Bhura Jat but the address is missing. The address which has been written and then crossed also does not claim that the appellant belongs to village Luniawas. This further supports the allegation of Benami allotment. 6.In the pleadings recorded by before the learned R.A.A and the Additional Collector it is an admi5ted fact that the first mutation No.90 was mutated on 24.6.1969 in the name of Gopal S/o Bhura but the subsequent mutation no. 167 was recorded in the name of Gopi S/o bhura of Luniawas on 390.1.1981 of the same land. Learned R.A.A. Has accepted in his pleadings that the allotment was made in the name of Gopal and the first mutation was attested in the name of Gopal but learned R.A.A. Has failed to discuss as to why this land was recorded subsequently in the name of Gopi S/o Bhura instead of Gopal S/o Bhura Jat. There is no explanation of the allegations made by the Tehsildar claiming that there is no person as Gopal S/o Bhura or Gopi S/o Bhura in the village. It is, therefore, evident tht learned R.A.A has decided this mater in a casual fashion without properly evaluating the facts which wee available in the pleadings. 7.The vakalatnama presented before learned R.A.A. Also reveals that the vakalatnama was presented by one Shri Gopal S/o Bhura Jat r/o Luniawas, Tehsil Sambharlake but there is no mention of anybody as Gopal alias Gopi in the vakalatnama. 8.Hon'ble High Court has decided a principle that allotment obtained through fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of facts can be cancelled at any time even if khatedari rights have been obtained. This authority of Hon'ble High Court as reported in RRD 2002 page 01 is directly relevant in this case because this is a clear cum cse of fraud and misrepresentation and concealment of facts and surprisingly this fraud is continuing even today and the respondent has failed to give his address even at the level of Board of Revenue. 7. In view of the discussion above, this is a clear-cut case of allotment obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and the above authority of the D.B. Of the Hon'ble High Court is directly applicable and I am respectfully duty bound to accept the authority of the Hon'ble High Court in this matter. 8. As such, this appeal is accepted, order of learned R.A.A is set aside and the order of learned Addl. Collector-III dated 1.8.2002 is upheld and the order of cancellation of disputed allotment is upheld and the land reverts to the State Government. This order will be complied with within a period of one month positively. 9.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I could find it proper that this decision may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chairman, Board of Revenue so that he can kindly consider for giving appropriate directions to the concerned revenue authorities for administrative inquiry in this matter regarding disciplinary action. Pronounced.” Counsel for the petitioner was given time to make a submission on the issue of the production of ration card and voter list of the village in question wherein the name of the petitioner entered, but, no document has been produced. On perusal of the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue, it appears that the allotment has been obtained by fraud, therefore, no interference is called for. However,report of the inquiry as directed by the Board of Revenue in para 9 of the judgment be completed within a period of one month and the same be placed before this court. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. (Prem Shankar Asopa),J