JARIN HUMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter came up for orders on application (IA No. 5167/2013) filed by the applicants-Smt. Jarin Huma and Sayyed Zile Konin under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for withdrawal of the writ petition and for initiating appropriate criminal proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The applicants have, inter alia, submitted that the present writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 267/2002 has been shown to have been filed, inter alia, by applicants and some more persons, wherein a prayer has been made for quashing of the acquisition proceedings and a prayer has been made for considering the application filed under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 Othe LR Act'), but affidavit supporting the writ petition is by one Mr. Anil Purohit, the deponent-Anil Purohit has stated on oath that he is one of the petitioners in the case, however, he is not one of the petitioners, further the deponent has even stated that he has been authorized by the petitioners to file the writ petition; alongwith the writ petition, a power of attorney dated 5.12002 has been filed, however, none of the petitioners are signatory to the said power of attorney. From the above, it is claimed that the said Anil Purohit has played a fraud with this Court and has committed perjury while filing the present writ petition without any authority or locus.

(2.) It is also alleged that for the purpose of filing the present writ petitioner the said Anil Purohit has prepared a forged document (Annex. 1) dated 20.5.2000, which was never signed by the applicants or the other 11 petitioners, the documents have been fraudulently prepared by using Blank Stamp Papers signed by the Khatedars. The applicants have, whereafter enumerated the facts pertaining to the subject matter of the present writ petition, wherein it is claimed that the land in question is situated in Khasra Nos. 2602 to 2646 of Village-Bhuvana, Tehsil-Girwa, District-Udaipur and was entered in the name of Chand Mohd. As co-owner with half share jointly with Mohd. Hussain, Mohd. Hanif, Yunus Mohd., Hussain, Fatta and Sakina Bai having other half share; after death of the co-sharers, names of their legal representatives were entered in the revenue record, the land in question was acquired under Section 90-B of the LR Act. It is then claimed that half share of the land in question was sold by a sale deed in favour of the applicant No. 1 Smt. Jarin Huma by Mohd. Hussain, Mohd. Hanif, Yunus Mohd., Hussain, Fatta and Sakina Bai, for a sum of Rs. 42,60,000/- and possession was also handed over to the applicant.

(3.) Applicant under Section 90-B of the LR Act was filed before the Urban Improvement Trust CUIT') for respective share, whereafter, Chand Mohd. Sold his half share of land in favour of Rajni Motawat and Smt. Seema; the objections were raised by the UIT on the application filed by the applicant for lack of registered document and, whereafter, registered sale deed was executed by legal representatives of the original title holder. When the application under Section 90-B of the LR Act was being processed by the UIT, an application came to be filed by Anil Purohit referring to a judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2262/2001, submitting objections with regard to the applications, when a notice dated 22.7.2013 was issued by the respondent UIT to the said Anil Purohit and the applicant calling upon them to appear on 13.8.2013. It is claimed that on filing of the objections by Anil Purohit before the UIT that the applicants came to know about filing of the present writ petition and another writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2262/2001. Whereafter the applicants have made reference to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2262/2001 and have submitted that the said writ petition was filed in the name of Anil Purohit and Chand Mohd. with a prayer for decision of application under Section 90-B of the LR Act and for quashing acquisition proceedings. It is alleged that the copy of the agreement date 22.5.2000 was purposely not placed on record, whereby it was claimed that right accrued in favour of Anil Purohit, allegations have been made regarding the document being a fraudulent document, the said writ petition came to be disposed of alongwith various other writ petitions by order dated 15.2.2007 with a direction to the UIT to decide the application under Section 90-B of the LR Act.