BULLA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.S.SandhawaliaI conclude that the writ petitioner here is guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts and distorting them in a manner so as to mislead the Court. His conduct comes well within the ambit of indulging in a sharp practice to secure admission of the writ petition and the consequent relief of the stay of his dispossession which he obtained. Coming within the hallowed rule laid consistently in this Court in Mr. U.C. Rekhi v. The Income-tax Officer, 1950 52 PunLR 261, Narain Das and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1952 54 PunLR 366and Smt. Bhupinder Kaur v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others,1968 47 LLT 44, this writ petition merits dismissal on this short ground alone.

(2.) It is, therefore, unnecessary to advert to the facts in great detail. It is adequate to mention that the petitioner who was a tenant under one Narain Das of village Kherpur, was evicted therefrom under section 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. He was resettled on five standard acres of surplus area belonging to one Mahant Manohar Das. Subsequently the allotment of Mahant Manohar Das was cancelled and as a pure concession the petitioner was offered concessional price for the purchase of the land under his occupation. In the present writ petition the primary grievance sought to, be made out on petitioner's behalf was the alleged arbitrary demand of Rs. 14,000/- by the respondent State for the auction purchase of the above-said area.

(3.) From the undisputed averments made in the return by the respondent and also from the record produced in Court it is no longer in dispute that on 23rd November, 1970, the petitioner had himself appeared before the Tehsildar and willingly got recorded a statement which he duly thumb-impressed. A reference to this document would show that therein he unreservedly expressed his willingness to purchase the land in accordance with the Government instructions on the point. He further undertook to pay the agreed amount subject to the calculations in accordance with those instructions. The clear averment in that statement is that the area in excess of five standard acres in his occupation had been willingly surrendered by him on that date. It was in pursuance of this willingness of the petitioner that a virtually agreed order was recorded by the Tehsildar on 23rd November, 1970, allowing the purchase and transfer of the area to the petitioner on the payment of Rs. 14,000/-. It is then not in dispute that the petitioner later deposited the said amount in the Government treasury and thereafter secured a regular conveyance deed for the same in his favour.