Back
Rajasthan High Court
Honble DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN CJ. & BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.
Sohan Kanwar - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 616 of 2000
Decided On : August 31, 2001
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The case involves an appeal against the cancellation of land allotment made under the Rajasthan Allotment of Land to the Landless Persons Rules, 1970, specifically Rule 14(4), which allows for cancellation in cases of fraud or misrepresentation (!) .
The land in question was allotted to the appellant based on her claim of being a landless person; however, it was found that she concealed the fact that her husband held land of approximately 43 bighas 5 biswas (!) .
The cancellation of the allotment was upheld because the appellant failed to disclose her husband's landholding, which disqualified her from being considered landless (!) (!) .
The appellant claimed she was living separately from her husband and was not served proper notice; however, authorities concluded there was no proof of divorce or separation, and the concealment was deemed fraudulent (!) (!) .
The legal principle emphasized is that any benefit obtained through misrepresentation or fraud cannot be legally sustained, as such acts are considered morally turpitudinous (!) .
The basic order of allotment is considered a consequential order; if the foundational order is obtained by fraud, all subsequent orders based on it are also invalid and must be set aside (!) (!) .
The authority has the power under the rules to cancel an allotment if it was secured through fraud or misrepresentation, and such cancellation can be exercised at any time, regardless of the passage of time (!) (!) .
The lapse of time (e.g., 30 years) does not bar the cancellation of an allotment obtained by fraudulent means, as the fundamental order itself is void ab initio (!) (!) .
The case distinguishes between temporary and permanent allotments, noting that misrepresentation at the temporary stage, if not canceled earlier, does not prevent cancellation once discovered (!) .
The decision underscores that any subsequent actions or grants based on an invalid, fraudulently obtained order are also invalid, and the rights derived from such orders do not survive their invalidation (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the cancellation was justified due to the fraudulent procurement of the allotment, and upheld the authority’s exercise of power under the relevant rules (!) .
The principles outlined reinforce that orders obtained through misrepresentation or fraud can be annulled at any stage, and no legal or temporal barrier can justify retaining such benefits (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
(2). The Collector, Pali issued a notice to the petitioner as to why the allotment made in her favour be not cancelled because she in her application for allotment has not disclosed that there is already existing land in favour of her husband to the tune of 43 bighas 5 biswas land. The said notice was issued to the petitioner. But the petitioner failed to appear pursuant to the notice. The matter was adjudicated ex parte and the land allotted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority observed that the appellant in her application has not disclosed the holding of her husband. Since her husband was having a holding in his name, she cannot be considered to be a landless person. Therefore, she is not entitled to be allotted the land and maintained the order of cancellation of allotment made in her favour. A revision petition was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue considered the question raised by the petitioner that no notice was served on her and, therefore, the cancellation was bad. She also claimed that she is living separately from her husband and, therefore, the allotment should not be cancelled. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that there is nothing on the record to sustain that the petitioner had obtained any divorce to live separately from her husband and this has been further observed by the Board of Revenue that the allotment was obtained by concealing the fact that land is existing in her husbands name. Therefore, it was by misrepresentation that the land was got allotted. She was not entitled as a landless person to get the allotment made in her favour. Learned Member of the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that the Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority have appreciated the fact rightly and no illegality was committed.
(3). It was urged before the learned Single Judge that the notice was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner was having strained relations with her husband and she was living separately. It was also urged before the learned Single Judge that after the acquisition of khatedari rights and after expiry of a period of 10 years from the date of allotment the allotment could not have been cancelled after a lapse of 30 years and placed reliance on Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue & Ors (1) and also on Pat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2). The learned Single Judge after considering the case of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to get any advantage of the aforesaid judgments for the simple reason that the allotment itself was obtained by her by misrepresentation. The learned Single Judge has held that it is settled proposition of law that anything obtained by misrepresentation or fraud can never be sanctified as making misrepresentation itself amounts to moral turpitude. Learned Single Judge has further observed that anything obtained by misrepresentation or fraud cannot be allowed to be sustained. The learned Single Judge has also said that this Court in its Full Bench decision in Chiman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (3), vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2000, has considered the aspect of interference in allotment at a very belated stage and held that the revisional powers can be exercised at any time provided (i) the order has been obtained by fraud; (ii) order is obtained by mis-representation or collusion with public authority by the private party; (iii) order is against public interest; (iv) the order is without jurisdiction; (v) order is in clear violation of the statutory rules or provisions of the Act; and (vi) order is void/void ab initio being against public po
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
