RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. S. Sinha, J Heard Shri Dilip Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri O. P. Singh, learned Stand ing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1 to 5 and Shri S. D. N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Raja Mahendra Ripudaman Singh, seeking impleading as respondent No. 6.

(2.) THE petitioner was served notice under Section 6 of the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (U. P. Act No. 9 of 1957), hereinafter called the Act. A copy of the notice is Annexure-8 to the petition. By this notice the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Demarcation Officer on 30th November, 1990 and file written objection, if there be any, in respect of proposed correction of alleged clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the demarcation proceedings.

(3.) FROM the undisputed averments noticed above the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court and suppression of material facts, specially with regard to the fact that on the date when the Court passed the interim order staying the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notice there was nothing to be stayed. The proceedings had come to an end on passing of the order dated 28-1-1991 by the Demarcation Officer/s. D. O. , Agra. Thus, petitioner, clear ly, obtained the interim order by mislead ing the Court and by suppression of material facts about passing of the final order in the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notice. Therefore, the petitioner has incurred the liability of having his petition dismissed on this ground alone.