SOHAN KANWAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present special appeal has been filed by the petitioner appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11. 5. 2000, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(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 husband's 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.) IN the instant case, the allotment in question was obtained on misrepresentation. Therefore, Brij Lal's case is of no assistance in the present case.