JITENDRA NARCHAL Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer and the order dated 5.6.2003 passed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer (UIT).

(2.) Learned counsel submits that by the aforesaid orders, land belonging to the petitioner was regularised in favour of the private respondent No.3-Vinod Narchal. It was without authority of law and otherwise the land regularised in favour of the private respondent is for bigger area than surrendered by him. It was in violation of provisions of law and to benefit private respondent. On regularisation of the land under section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'), petitioner preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, however, it was dismissed ignoring the fact that an order under section 90B of the Act could not have been passed without an application by the petitioner for the land belonging to him. It is more so when private respondent came out with two documents i.e. power of attorney and sale deed though the power of attorney was disputed rather an FIR was lodged against the private respondent alleging forgery on his part for creation of power of attorney. Ignoring the aforesaid, impugned order has been passed thus both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside with a direction to the respondents No.1 and 2 not to regularise the land belonging to the petitioner in Khasra No.817 and 818 of Village Nausar, Ajmer.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents have contested the writ petition. It is submitted that the land of khasra No. 817 and 818 was existing in the name of the brothers. A poultry farm was constructed by the petitioner and another brother Ravindra Narchal after taking loan from the bank. They failed to satisfy the loan amount thus the bank filed case against them for recovery. The private respondents No.3 and 4 were guarantor to the loan thus they were also made party in the suit. The civil suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.12 lakh. The petitioner and his brotherRavindra Narchal were unable to satisfy the aforesaid amount thus the land belonging to Ravindra Narchal and the petitioner was sold to to private respondents No.3 and 4. A power of attorney and sale deed was executed for the aforesaid. The private respondents No.3 and 4 satisfied the loan amount of the bank and receipt was obtained for it.