S.B.C.W.P. No.10317/2019
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955–Sec. 88–Evidence Act, 1872–Sec. 115 [ Corresponding Sec. 121 of BSA, 2023 ]–Estoppel–Applicability–Petitioner-UIT has acted in pursuance of the order dated 28.06.2003, passed by RAA and has not assailed the order dated 03.09.2003, passed by BOR–Proceedings in terms of Sec. 90-B of the Act of 1959 were undertaken by it after the complete process being undertaken and pattas were issued–Now, it cannot be permitted to turn over and aver that the order dated 28.06.2003 was bad in eyes of law–When one party by its conduct makes other party believe to have acted upon some promise or assurance so as to make other party also acts upon said promise/assurance, the said first party cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relationship as if no such promise or assurance was made by it–The intentional relinquishment of the right by the petitioner-UIT amounts to a waiver–Further, most of the patta holders/subsequent purchasers have even raised construction over the plots after having been granted due permission for construction by petitioner itself–Furthermore, the order of cancellation of pattas by the Divisional Commissioner has been set aside in the S.B.C.W.P. no. 42/2008, in which the petitioner was a party-respondent–No objection regarding the khatedari rights was raised by the petitioner in the said writ petition–Held, prayer of the petitioner for declaration of the land in question in its ownership is not sustainable–Petition deserves to be dismissed.
