IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.353 of 1994 BRIJ NANDAN BHAGAT Versus STATE & ORS with CWJC No.350 of 1994 RAVINDRA KUMAR Versus STATE & ORS ----------- 10/ 08.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of respondents 6 to 8 despite valid service of notice in both the writ applications. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of respondents 6 to 8, Basudeo Mandal initiated a Bataidari Case No. 2/78-79 and 3/78-79 against the petitioner in respect of two separate plots of land. It was dismissed on 23.11.1981 affirmed in C.W.J.C. Nos. 446 and 447 of 1982 dated 4.1.1988. Concealing the said facts, respondents 6 to 8, sons of Basudeo Mandal filed a fresh Bataidari case in respect of the same lands as Case No. 53/90-91 already adjudicated in Case No. 2/78-79 and Case No. 54/90-91 already adjudicated in Case No. 3/78-79. The petitioners appeared upon notice and specifically stated in their reply that the earlier Bataidari application preferred by their father had been dismissed and upheld upto this Court. Respondents 6 to 8 concealing that fact have filed the present application and the matter could not be 2 agitated by them afresh by misuse of process of Court. The Bataidari application preferred afresh by respondents 6 to 8 has been allowed by the Deputy Collector without considering the objection of the petitioners and dealing with it appropriately. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and as we have noticed none of the private respondents have appeared. If a Bataidari case had been filed by respondents 6 to 8 and the petitioners had raised an objection that earlier a Bataidari case filed by the father of respondents 6 to 8 stood rejected, it was a very relevant issue to be considered by the authority while dealing with the fresh Bataidari case preferred by the said respondents. Failure to do so vitiates the order of the Deputy Collector in favour of the respondents as it refused to take into consideration relevant materials rendering the order arbitrary and unsustainable. We find yet another reason to hold that the impugned order in favour of respondents 6 to 8 granting them Bataidari right is not sustainable. One who comes to a Court of justice must stand to the rigours of the truthfulness presumed on his part. If he attempts to pollute the stream of justice either by concealment or by deliberately refraining from stating all necessary facts directly relevant and germane to the controversy, he is not entitled to be heard. Any person polluting the stream of justice has to be thrown out before others follow suit and 3 pollute the entire stream. Though the fact is not on record, perhaps respondents 6 to 8 decided to re-agitate the matter after their father’s death. Any afresh application on the same grounds with regard to the same lands concealing earlier application preferred by their father was nothing but perverse and vexatious proceeding initiated by them for purposes of harassment. In the entirety of the matter and considering the matter from all aspects, we set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.1993 common in both the applications granting Batiadari right to respondents 6 to 8. The impugned order is accordingly set aside in both the applications. The applications stand allowed. S.Sb/- (Navin Sinha, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)