CHARANJI LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE bane of the writ jurisdiction--a calculated and designed suppression of material facts in order to secure admission and interim relief--has come up for pointed attention and adjudication in this case.

(2.) THE facts are now not in serious dispute. The six writ--petitioners are all grandsons of one Moman. They had jointly brought this writ petition to primarily challenge the order of the Collector (Agrarian), Kaithal, district Kurukshetra, dated 17th of April, 1972 (and the appellate and revisional order upholding the same) whereby the rejected their application, seeking that the area declared surplus in the hands of their predecessor--in--interest Moman deceased be exempted from allotment to the ejected tenants. This relief was sought on the ground that the said land had been subsequently purchased by the petitioners from the vendees of Moman deceased through a pre--emption suit which was later on decreed in their favour. The Collector vide Annexure P--3 took the view that the area in dispute having been sold after July 30, 1958 by Moman could not be deemed to be a bona fide sale by its original owner. He further held that the decree obtained by the petitioners much later on the 4th of April, 1972 was also collusive in nature. An appeal filed by all the six writ petitioners against the order aforesaid was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on the 14th of August, 1972 vide Annexure P--4 to the writ petition. A revision against the said order met a similar fate latter.

(3.) THE present writ petition was preferred on the 16th of Sept. 1975 and came up for motion hearings on the following day when the dispossession of the petitioners was stayed and notice of motion was issued for Oct. 8, 1975. From the subsequent orders of the Motion Bench it is plain that the appearance was put in on behalf of the official respondents only and the private respondents 4 to 11 were either not served or in any case they did not put in appearance and the case was subsequently admitted for hearing to a Full Bench in view of the conflict of authorities; whilst the stay in favour of the petitioner was allowed to continue.