IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.1114 of 1993 Date of decision: 3rd March, 2008. Shri Partap Singh and others ….. Petitioners -Versus- State of H.P. and another …. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate For Respondents: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy.A.G. & Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30th June, 1993 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in case State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Partap Singh. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that according to the State, the petitioners had encroached upon some land belonging to the Forest Department. Proceedings under Section 163- A of the H.P. Land Revenue Act for eviction of the petitioners from the land allegedly encroached upon by them were initiated. An order of eviction was passed against them by the Assistant Collector on 22nd February, 1986 which order was upheld by the Collector, Rampur Sub 2 Division vide order dated 31st May, 1986. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed a Revision Petition under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division. This Revision Petition was decided on 5th August, 1986 whereby the order of eviction of the petitioners was upheld. However, the Divisional Commissioner was of the view that even though there were four petitioners only one fine could have been imposed and each one of the petitioners could not have been fined separately. He recommended the acceptance of the Revision petition to the limited extent. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that as far as the ejectment order was concerned the same was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner also. The Revision as recommended by the Divisional Commissioner was taken up by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. who vide his order dated 7.3.1987 accepted the Revision petition to the limited extent that fine was to be paid jointly by all the encroachers and each one of them could not have been held severally liable to pay the fine. It appears that thereafter the petitioners moved some application to the Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularization of their encroachment. On this application the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on 29th April, 1987 passed an order staying the previous order passed by his Predecessor. On 28th September, 1987 the Financial Commissioner amended the order dated 7.3.1987 and allowed the petitioners to apply for regularization of 50 sq.mts. of encroachment “under the latest instructions of the 3 Government which came into operation after my learned Predecessor had issued the final orders.” It appears that the learned Financial Commissioner relying upon the subsequent instructions wanted to review the order passed by his predecessor. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla wrote a letter to the Financial Commissioner dated Ist July/August, 1989 pointing out that the policy was not at all applicable to the petitioners since they owned 5 pucca houses at Rampur. The policy of regularization of encroachment in so far as it is relevant to this case reads as follows: “Encroachment in Urban Areas: Para-6.i)Encroachment upto 50 sq.meters of a built up area only may be regularised on payment of charges @ 5 times the current market value but this benefit shall not be available to a person who has his own residential house in his own occupation or has let it out on rent.” The Financial Commissioner relying upon the encroachment policy came to the conclusion that since the petitioners own 5 pucca houses this policy is not at all applicable to them and therefore recalled the earlier order dated 28th September, 1987. Sh.Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Review Petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable and even otherwise there was no error apparent on the face of the record and the remedy, if any, available to the State was to approach this Court in writ petition. He also contends that the Review petition has been filed much after the period of limitation had elapsed and since there was no application for condonation of delay the Review Petition should not have been dismissed. 4 We are not at all in agreement with these contentions. First of all there was no Review Petition filed by the petitioners against the initial order dated 7th March, 1987. On this letter a stay order was passed on 29.4.1987 and the order dated 28th September, 1987 was passed without issuing any notice to the State. A perusal of the order does not show that the State was represented before the Financial Commissioner. In fact there was no order passed in terms of the H.P. Land Revenue Act and the order, if any, was an administrative order and there is no period of limitation prescribed for changing such an order. We are also of the view that in exercise of our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction we cannot grant any relief to the petitioners as they have withheld material facts from this Court. The initial order of the Assistant Collector, the order of the Collector, the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 7th March, 1987 were not placed on record. Only reliance was placed on the subsequent orders passed by the Financial Commissioner on the representation of the petitioners. We are of the considered view that the petitioners with a view to mislead this Court purposely withheld the orders from this Court. Even though, in the petition it was mentioned that the petitioners would be placing the copies of the orders on record at a latter stage, no such attempt was made though 14 years had elapsed since the filing of the petition. An even more serious lapse is that the petitioners failed to state in the writ petition that the Civil Suit filed by them before the Sub 5 Judge Ist Class, Rampur being case No.C.S. 45-1/94 titled Partap Singh and others vs. Municipal Committee, Rampur had been dismissed as far back as on 29th February, 1988. The learned Civil Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioners had constructed the dhara only in the year 1984 and no case was made out for adverse possession. These facts were absolutely relevant and material for the present case. The petitioners are guilty of “supressio veri and suggestio falsi”. They have tried to hoodwink this Court and have managed to remain in possession of the land for the last 15 years by obtaining orders from this Court by suppressing material facts. The writ petitions are decided on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Every party who approaches the Court and prays for discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction must come to the Court with clean hands. It must put-forth all facts and should not conceal material facts nor should try to suggest falsehood. Any party who indulges in such improper practice cannot be granted any relief by the Court. Even otherwise, on merits also we find that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Admittedly, the petitioners are owners of five pucca houses. They were not covered under the policy. The order dated 20th September, 1987 was passed by the Financial Commissioner in a totally illegal manner without giving any notice to the State and without even registering a Review Petition. This order was palpably erroneously on the face of the record and the learned Financial Commissioner rightly recalled this order vide subsequent 6 order dated 30th June, 1993. It was only after the Deputy Commissioner pointed out the true position to the Financial Commissioner, he could have passed this order. The petitioners who are owners of five pucca houses cannot under any law claim regularization of encroachment of more land in the Municipal Committee area. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed with exemplary costs assessed at Rs.25,000/-. Heavy costs have been imposed since the petitioners have been found guilty of willfully trying to mislead and hoodwink this Court. The State shall also be at liberty to recover use and occupation charges from the petitioners in accordance with law. Interim order stands vacated. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge March 3, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma ), PV Judge