- (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief: "i) by way of appropriate writ, order or directions, the orders dated 24th December, 1997 and 25th January, 2008 passed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside; ii) any other writ, order or directions to which the petitioners may be entitled to in the circumstances of the case, may be issued in his favour; iii) cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgments. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noticed that one allotment of land was made in the joint name of petitioner Daulat Prakash and respondent no.3 Om Prakash by Tehsildar, Baran; the entry whereof was made in register no. 328 and the patta was issued accordingly. The petitioner filed an application before the Collector, Baran imploring that the name of respondent no.3 Om Prakash be deleted from the revenue record. The Collector, Baran passed the judgment in his favour and aggrieved with the same, the respondent no.3 Om Prakash preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota set-aside the judgment of the Collector, Baran and allowed the appeal and restored the allotment of land in favour of the respondent no.3 Om Prakash. This time, the petitioner felt aggrieved and preferred the second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue having critically analyzed all the facts of the case, dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 24th December, 1997 rendered by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. The main thrust of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of respondent no.3 Om Prakash was Patwari in Tehsil, Baran at the relevant point of time. The father of the respondent no.3 and his maternal uncle maneuvered the revenue record and got the name of respondent no.3 also added in the allotment letter. Hence, it was a case of forgery and the Board of Revenue rested its judgment solely on the finding of the departmental enquiry conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, wherein he was not a party. The fact is that the land in question was allotted merely in favour of the petitioner and not in the joint name of petitioner and respondent no.3 Om Prakash. Hence, the judgments rendered by the courts below deserve to be set-aside. The petitioner is found to have filed the instant petition solely on the ground of interpolation having been made in the revenue record. So far as the departmental enquiry conducted by SDM against the father of the respondent no.3 is concerned, he was not found guilty and exonerated from the alleged charges. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not a party in the departmental enquiry is not tenable as he was not required to be a party in the departmental enquiry at all. The petitioner is also found to have lodged the FIR with the police, but the police is said to have given the Final Report stating that the parties were already facing trial in the civil suit and hence, no offence was found to have been committed by respondent no.3 and his father. Be that as it may, there is no finding with regard to the fact that the forgery was committed by the father of the respondent no.3 at any point of time. The Board of Revenue has categorically observed in the impugned judgment dated 25th January, 2008 that the land could be allotted in the joint name of two persons and there was no bar under the law as such. The learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to convince me to take a contrary view to that of the view taken by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority as also the Board of Revenue. The judgments rendered by both the courts below are found to be just and apt and warrant no intervention as they do not suffer from any infirmity.
(3.) IN view of above, the writ petition being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.;