The High Court on a review of the evidence found it proved, that, although at some stages reference to the pre emption suit filed by the plaintiffs appeared in the history of the case, the defendants did not disclose the fact that a decree had been passed in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit, nor did any authority (except the Tehsildar) try to find out whether a decree had been passed in that suit; that it was never brought to the notice of any authority by the defendants that the finding of the Trial Court was against them and it was because they had failed to prove that they intended to set up a factory, no authority ever tried to learn anything about that finding; that only a few days after the filing of the appeal by the defendants against the decree of the Trial Court an affidavit was filed by one of the defendants that they intended to put up a factory on the land in question; that the District Inspector of Industries at Gurgaon made a report in favour of the defendants, only on the basis that they had started building the boundary wall; that the Tehsildar made a report adverse to the defendants, and pointed out that they had only constructed a small room in the middle of the land and not a factory building; that the move of the defendants was to stultify and defeat that decree; that the Deputy Commissioner first ordered that a copy of the report of the Tahsildar be forwarded to the Government,but two days later the Deputy Commissioner changed his mind when the defendants approached him and on the mere statement of the defendants that they intended to set up a factory in the land in question, heproceeded to recommend that "exemption notification under section 8(2) of the Act" be issued in favour of the defendants and that this was followed up by the higher authorities; that the report of the Tahsildar which had material bearing on the decision to be taken in the matter of issue of the impugned notification was suppressed and for this suppression there was no explanation "on the side of the State"; that although in the note dated March 14, 1962 of the Joint Director of Industries, it was directed that the defendants were to sign an agreement that the exemption to be granted to them would not be "misutilised" and the land would "not be sold for money making", and although in the Revenue Department 's note of August 14, 1962, it was 5 5 4 stated that the Director of Industries be asked to obtain such an undertaking before the issue of the notification, no such agreement or undertaking was obtained from the defendants and all that was done was that on November 8, 1962 (a day before the date of the notification and some days before its publication) another affidavit was obtained from the defendants that the land had been purchased for establishing a factory and "they solemnly undertook not to misuse or abuse the land", and declared and undertook that the land shall be used only for industrial purposes, but there was "no manner of contract by them whereby they would have to surrender back the land in the event of their not using it for the purpose of establishing a factory".