Fraud vitiates all acts; a transferee cannot assert rights over a void allotment, and failure to provide notice does not confer legitimacy on such a transaction.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (Annex.1) passed in Review Petition, the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 (Annex.2) passed by the Board of Revenue and the impugned order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3), may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside.

Any other relief to which petitioner appears entitle to may kindly be also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 had submitted an application on 14.03.1955 for allotment of land in the Canal Area. On the basis of the said application, the competent authority allotted 24 bigha 5 biswa command land in Chak No. K.L.S.M. 3/61, Murabba No. 1 to 25/241 vide order dated 08.01.1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the disputed land”). Possession of the land was handed over to Respondent No. 1 and a Khatedari Sanad was also issued in his favour. After that, the petitioner purchased the disputed land from Respondent No. 1 through a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2010 (Annex.6) and since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the land.

3. The petitioner has been irrigating the land and regularly paying charges to the Water Resources Department. Thereafter, one Sumar S/o Aarab Khan filed a complaint alleging that Respondent No. 1 had obtained the allotment by concealing material facts. Based on the said complaint, the District Collector, Barmer ordered an enquiry through the SDO, Shiv, pursuant thereto, an application under Rule 22(3) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (Rules of 1975) was filed before the Additional Colonisation Commissioner, Jaisalmer, although the application (Annex.7) itself admitted that the disputed land had been sold to the petitioner and that the petitioner was in possession, no notice was ever issued to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner nevertheless appeared voluntarily and submitted a copy of the sale deed. The learned Additional Colonisation Commissioner, Jaisalmer, without supplying the petitioner either the enquiry report or a copy of the complaint, passed the order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3), declaring the original allotment order dated 08.01.1991 as illegal and cancelling all consequential proceedings, including the petitioner’s registered sale deed.

5. The petitioner, having never been served with notice, remained unaware of the said order and therefore could not challenge it. After that Respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 14.11.2011 (Annex.3) by filing a Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue. In the Revision Petition, the petitioner was arrayed only as a proforma party and no notice was issued to him. The Revision Petition was dismissed on 18.01.2019 (Annex.2) on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had no subsisting interest in the land after its sale to the petitioner. That Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a Review Petition before the Board of Revenue, once again impleading the petitioner only as a proforma party and no notice was issued to the petitioner in the Review Petition, which ultimately came to be dismissed on 04.09.2025 (Annex.1).

6 Learned counsel representing