1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2817/08 Kailash Chander Vs. Shri Jagdishchandra & Ors. Date of order : 16.05.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.R.Mehta for the petitioner. By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged Annex.3 “Sahamati Patra” and order Annex.5 dated 22.4.2002 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, order Annex.6 dated 6.6.2003 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur and order Annex.8 dated 6.10.2007 passed by Board of Revenue. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that in Khasra No.692 measuring 0.12 Hectare, the petitioner and the respondents have half share and some of the share holders i.e. private respondents got the land converted from agriculture to non-agriculture use on the strength of Annex.3 “Sahamati Patra”. The petitioner challenged 2 the Annex.3 “Sahamati Patra” as also land conversion order before the respondent authority which came to be dismissed by the Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur and on revisions before the Board of Revenue, the revision petitions also came to be dismissed. However, on review applications, while dismissing the review applications, the Board of Revenue in para 5 of order Annex.8 observed that if the “Sahamati Patra” is forged document, then it will be open for the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the competent Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a suit was filed by the petitioner against the contesting respondents before the Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh which came to be dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide order Annex.9 dated 30.6.2007. However, an appeal against the dismissal of the suit has been preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority which is yet pending. Learned counsel submits that the suit has been dismissed only on the ground that the Board of Revenue concluded that there was a partition of the land between the parties and thereafter the land was got converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes on the basis of the “Sahamati Patra”, whereas according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner never consented and “Sahamati Patra” is forged one. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already 3 filed the suit and such controversy can only be decided by adducing evidence involving question of facts, therefore, in my view, no error or illegality can be found with the order of the respondent Board of Revenue. The petition is therefore, dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the Revenue Appellate Authority. It is made clear that the Board of Revenue has noticed in para 5 of the order Annex.8 that if the petitioner comes with a case that “Sahamati Patra” is forged, then this issue has to be decided by evidence and if the Assistant Collector while dismissing the suit failed to decide such issue, it would be open for the Revenue Appellate Authority to consider and decide the same while deciding of the appeal. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp