1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7018/2009 (Hadman Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) Date of Order :: 19th August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Varun Goyal for the petitioner ..... BY THE COURT: Seeking to challenge the order dated 23.05.2006 as passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board'), this writ petition was filed by the petitioner Hadman Ram on 04.11.2008; and, after removal of defects, came up for admission before the Court on 22.07.2009. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that another writ petition against the common impugned order dated 23.05.2006 is pending before this Court, being CWP No.6703/2007, wherein notices have been issued with interim order for maintaining status quo. The learned counsel placed for perusal a copy of the order dated 11.10.2007 as passed in CWP No.6703/2007 wherein, the fact was noticed that another similar writ petition, CWP No.7095/2006, was also pending and, while issuing notices and directing status quo to be maintained, the said CWP No.6703/2007 was ordered to be connected with CWP No.7095/2006. 2 Ordinarily, when a similar writ petition is said to be pending, this Court does not deny entertaining another petition involving akin issues; and more particularly, when challenge is to the common impugned order, the petition filed subsequently is entertained but then, in the present case, considering the date of the impugned order i.e., 23.05.2006 and the years of institution of the aforesaid similar writ petitions i.e., 2006 and 2007; and the fact that the present petition was filed only on 04.11.2008 i.e., more than two years beyond the date of the impugned order and about one year beyond the date of the order passed in CWP No.6703/2007, the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on admission to consider whether to entertain this grossly belated petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record and the averments as taken in the petition, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition filed more than two years beyond the date of the impugned order and by the person who was not a party before the Board of Revenue and who appears having no right to maintain the petition. The petitioner Hadman Ram has averred in this writ petition that the land in question admeasuring 12.13 bighas as comprised in Murraba Nos.81/15 and 81/16 at Chak 2 3 GSMR, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner came to be allotted to the respondent No.3 Mohd. Ali Shah in the year 1987. According to the petitioner, on 01.08.1996, the respondent No.3 entered into an agreement to sell the land in question to him and handed over possession. The petitioner has averred that being a gair khatedar tenant at the relevant time, the allottee undertook the obligation to get the sale deed registered after obtaining khatedari rights. The petitioner has placed on record as Annexure-1 a photostat of the alleged agreement for sale dated 01.08.1996; and has also placed on record as Annexure-2 a photostat of the alleged power of attorney extended by the respondent No.3 Mohd. Ali Shah to him on 27.12.1999 with the submissions that he was assigned all the rights by the respondent No.3 to contest the litigations in relation to the land in question and so also to look after the said land. The petitioner has pointed out that the proceedings were initiated against the respondent No.3 in the Court of Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Kolayat for double allotment on the allegations that he had previously obtained the allotment of 41.16 bighas of land as comprised in Murraba Nos.95/63 and 95/55 at Chak 3 MM, Tehsil Pugal in the year 1984. The petitioner has placed on record as Annexure-3 the order 4 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation on 29.09.1999 who found the respondent No.3 having obtained the allotment of the land in question at Chak 2 GSMR, Tehsil Kolayat while concealing the fact of such previous allotment and, therefore, proceeded to cancel the allotment of the land in question at Chak 2 GSMR. The petitioner has further averred that against the order dated 29.09.1999, the respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Colonisation cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner ('the RAA') and, while placing on record a copy of the memo of appeal as Annexure-4, the petitioner has pointed out that the said Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 29.09.1999, and ordered resumption of the land allotted in Tehsil Pugal instead of the one in Tehsil Kolayat by its order dated 12.04.2001 (Annex.5). The petitioner has pointed out that against the order so passed by the RAA on 12.04.2001, the State as well as the private respondent filed the revision petitions before the Board of Revenue bearing numbers 70/2002 and 74/2002 respectively. The present respondent No.3 submitted before the Board that he had not filed any appeal before the RAA nor did he appoint anybody as general power of attorney nor did 5 he even apply for second allotment. The petitioner has averred that on such submissions of the respondent No.3, the Board proceeded to allow the revision petitions as filed by the State as well as the respondent No.3, set aside the order dated 12.04.2001, and restored the order dated 29.09.1999; and also ordered for enquiry in the matters relating to filing of the appeal and filing of the second application for allotment. While placing on record the copy of the order as passed by the Board of Revenue on 23.05.2006 as Annexure-6, the petitioner has averred that being aggrieved by the said order, he was left with no alternative efficacious remedy except to approach this Court. The grounds have been taken in the petition to the effect that the Board has passed the order dated 23.05.2006 without proper appreciation of the facts and the law applicable; that the appeal was indeed filed before the RAA by the respondent No.3 who made a false statement before the Board about not filing of the appeal and also made the wrong statement of having not applied for allotment of land in Tehsil Kolayat; that the said respondent executed the documents of power of attorney and agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner which make out that he had indeed applied for allotment and also sold the land in question to the petitioner in the year 1996 6 against consideration; and that the Board of Revenue, without making proper enquiry regarding the facts, proceeded to allow the appeal only on the basis of the allegations of the respondent No.3 that was not proper. According to the petitioner, the specific finding by the RAA that there was nothing on record to prove if the allottee took the possession of the land in Tehsil Pugal shows that the respondent No.3 was not having any information regarding the previous allotment and, therefore, rightly applied for allotment of land in Kolayat Tehsil. It has further been urged that when the respondent No.3 got the information regarding allotment of the land in Tehsil Pugal, he became greedy and hence filed the revision petition before the Board of Revenue on wrong facts that he did not apply for allotment in Tehsil Kolayat and that he did not file the appeal before the RAA. According to the petitioner, it being a serious matter involving serious allegations, proper enquiry was required to be made before passing any order in favour of the respondent No.3; and the Board of Revenue has erred in allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent No.3 only on his allegations. The petitioner contends that a person cannot get the benefit of his own wrong but in the present matter, the Board of Revenue has extended to the respondent No.3 the benefit of his 7 own wrong. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that the impugned order as passed by the Board of Revenue on 23.05.2006 be set aside and that passed by the RAA on 12.04.2001 be restored. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was never given the notice while passing the impugned order that has a direct bearing on his rights; that the respondent No.3 indeed filed the appeal before the RAA and took a categoric stand that he was not aware of the allotment of land in Tehsil Pugal nor did he take the possession of the said land and that the said land in Tehsil Pugal may be recorded as the government land. The learned counsel urged that the respondent No.3 intentionally changed his stand before the Board so as to cause loss to the petitioner and the Board has acted wholly illegally in proceeding on the suggestion as made by the said respondent No.3 without proper enquiry. The submissions as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds as taken in the writ petition do not make out a case for admission of this writ petition. As noticed, this writ petition in challenge to the order dated 23.05.2006 was filed by the petitioner only on 8 04.11.2008. There is not even a whisper in the petition about the cause for such an inordinate delay of more than two years in filing this writ petition from the date of the impugned order. The petitioner does not even state as to when did he come to know about the said order dated 23.05.2006? Even if it be assumed that the petitioner's case is similar to that involved in CWP No.7095/2006 and CWP No.6703/23007, this petition does not merit admission for having been filed after an inordinate delay and without even a cause having been stated for consideration regarding such delay. This petition is, therefore, required to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. Even while not inclined to entertain this writ petition for such an inordinate delay, this Court has examined the merits of the case and finds no ground for consideration in the writ jurisdiction. Whatever that has been averred by the petitioner gives out only the suggestions that he has an agreement for sale of the land in question from the respondent No.3 and that the respondent No.3 executed a power of attorney in his favour. All these, if at all, had been the dealings only between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 and for such dealings, the petitioner cannot be considered having an existing legal right so as to challenge the orders passed by the authorities 9 in relation to the allotment in question. The legality and validity of the allotment had essentially been the matter between the allotting authority and the allottee; and merely on the basis of an alleged agreement for sale, the petitioner cannot be considered having the right to question the order passed by the competent authority in relation to the validity of the allotment in question. According to the petitioner, the stand as taken before the Board of Revenue by the respondent No.3 was contrary to his stand before the RAA. It is noticed, however, that the respondent No.3 categorically stated before the Board that he did not file the appeal before the RAA and that he did not even make the application for the allotment of the land in question i.e., the one situated at Chak 2 GSMR in Tehsil Kolayat. The fact has been found established from record that the land at Chak 3 MM, Tehsil Pugal had been allotted to the respondent No.3 much before the allotment in question. Existing such a crucial fact, the learned RAA was entirely in error in directing that the subsequent allotment be maintained on the allegations as made in the appeal that there was no proof about the allottee being in possession of the land in Tehsil Pugal. The RAA failed to consider that the previous allotment of the land in Tehsil Pugal was, nevertheless, 10 existing and had not been annulled before making of subsequent allotment of the land in question in Tehsil Kolayat. In the given fact situation, it was the subsequent allotment that was liable to be cancelled and could not have been maintained. Thus, the revision petition as preferred by the State against the order of the RAA was required to be allowed irrespective of the other allegations of the respondent No.3 and, therefore, the impugned order dated 23.05.2006 cannot be considered unjustified. The petitioner has suggested in the writ petition that the allegations as made by the respondent No.3 called for serious enquiry. To this extent, the petitioner is right. The matter definitely calls for an enquiry and that is why the Board of Revenue has directed specific enquiry to be made in relation to the second allotment application and so also in relation to the appeal allegedly filed before the RAA. However, the petitioner does not appear correct in his further suggestion that the Board was required to have such enquiry conducted before passing the final order in the revision petitions. As aforesaid, irrespective of the result of such enquiry, so far the subsequent allotment is concerned, the same was required to be cancelled. The allotting authority had rightly done so. The Board of Revenue cannot be faulted in 11 restoring the legal and justified order of the allotting authority as passed on 29.09.1999. The order as passed by the Board of Revenue on 23.05.2006 appears to be just and proper; and, as commented hereinbefore, the petitioner, allegedly having an agreement for sale in his favour from the respondent No.3, does not appear having legal right to maintain this writ petition in challenge to the order so passed by the Board. For all the reasons aforesaid, the circumstances are compelling where, even while deviating from the routine practice of entertaining the petition when said to be similar to the pending petition, this writ petition be not entertained as the same suffers from gross delay; and has been filed on baseless grounds by the person who was not a party before the subordinate Courts, and who appears having no existing legal right to challenge the order impugned. The petition stands rejected. A copy of this order be placed on the records of CWP No.7095/2006 and CWP No.6703/2007. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.