1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL [W] No.102/2010 [OMPATI VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.] Date of order : 02.08.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.J.L.Purohit for the appellant. Mr.S.L.Jain for the respondent. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant writ petitioner is aggrieved against the judgment dated 17.09.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge while rejecting the petitioner's petition after holding the petitioner for guilty of abuse of process of law, suppressing the facts from the court and placing before the Court of Tehsildar Gharsana, a wrong fact about any interim order passed by the High Court which was never passed, this Court directed the Tehsildar concerned to comply with the interim order of handing over the possession of disputed land to the respondents. This Court dismissed the writ petition of the the petitioner with cost of Rs.11,000/-. Hence the petitioner preferred this special appeal. It appears that the petitioner got the land demarcated in 2 accordance with law by moving an application before the Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana wherein it was found that some portion of the land is in possession of private respondent. The petitioner then filed a suit under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act seeking possession of the land from respondent No.3. Said suit was decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Asstt. Collector, Gharsana. Against that decree, respondent preferred appeal before the Addl. Collector, Suratgarh for setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.06.2008 passed by Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana. The said appeal was allowed by the Addl. Collector, Suratgarh on 11.08.2008 and the order passed by the Tehsildar (Revenue) dated 27.06.2008 was set aside. The petitioner challenged the order of remand by preferring a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was rejected by the Board of Revenue on 26.05.2009. Petitioner then preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6111/2009 on 23.06.2009, which was dismissed by the High court on 06.07.2009. Now, in ten days petitioner preferred present Writ Petition No.7420/2009 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner during the course of arguments, confined his relief in this Writ Petition No.7420/2009 to the effect that Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana be directed to comply with the order of remand meaning thereby he should proceed to decide the matter finally. As is clear from the facts mentioned above, the order of remand was against the petitioner and he had grievance against that order of 3 remand and he challenged the order of remand before the Board of Revenue in Revision and then before this Court by preferring Writ Petition No.6111/2009 which was dismissed by the High Court only on 06.07.2009. Now petitioner preferred this writ petition which has been filed in ten days for seeking direction against the Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana that he should decide the matter in terms of the remand order. We do not find any reason for such grievance of the petitioner particularly when the petitioner challenged the remand order that challenge to remand order came to an end on 06.07.2009 and within ten days how the petitioner could have any grievance for not deciding the matter by the Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana. At this juncture, it will be relevant to mention that the learned Single Judge after careful examination on facts found that an application was submitted before the Tehsildar concerned informing that an interim order has been passed by this court and the petitioner when was confronted with this fact then, he tried to disown this fact by shifting the burden on local counsel. The Court also took note of the fact that thereafter petitioner does not press the writ petition and, therefore it was dismissed. This Court also found that petitioner filed the Writ Petition on 16.07.2009 and again he tried to question the order as passed by Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana for delivery of possession to respondent No.3 and that very order was already challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Addl. Collector, Suratgarh on 03.07.2009 i.e. before filing of the present petition, this 4 fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner in this petition. These facts are not in dispute, yet petitioner preferred to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge and with the plea that petitioner cannot be held guilty for suppression of fact or for concealment of the facts as petitioner's writ petition could have been dismissed only if petitioner would have suppressed the material facts and material facts means, facts which have some bearing on the merits of the case in hand. In present case, the learned Single Judge first in the impugned judgment quoted the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition which clearly demonstrates that learned Single Judge was right in holding that the conduct of the petitioner at every stage of the proceeding had been to conceal the facts and to abuse the process of the court. As already stated that this fact is not disputed that Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana, was informed in writing that there is an interim order passed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that said application was submitted before the Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana not by the petitioner but by his son. If it is so, then also inference can be drawn from the conduct of the petitioner that petitioner's son acted for and on behalf of the petitioner, if he submitted said application. Even if, that was not so then also, the petitioner himself had knowledge that a wrong application has been submitted by petitioner's son in petitioner's case before the Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana then the petitioner should have informed the Tehsildar that wrong application 5 has been submitted by his son informing that interim order has been passed by the High Court in the petitioner's proceedings, if petitioner was fair. We are in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge about the conduct of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly stated that possession of the land has already been handed over to the respondent No.3 in compliance of the interim order passed by the Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana and petitioner in this writ petition is not seeking re-delivery of the possession from the respondent No.3. Then, firstly since the order of Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana has already been complied with and there is no relief of re-delievery of the possession of land in question to petitioner, the petitioner certainly cannot have any grievance against the direction of this Court given in impugned judgment directing Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana to implement the interim order and therefore, the petitioner's challenge to impugned judgment is unwarranted. The High Court passed the order by exercising supervisory jurisdiction, looking to the conduct of the petitioner and gave relief to the respondent of re-delivery of possession to the respondent which was because of the reason of setting aside the order of the Tehsildar (Revenue) Gharsana by which the petitioner got the possession then certainly, the petitioner if is granted any relief then that will be giving an illegal benefit to the petitioner on the basis of an order which already stands set aside, 6 therefore, also this Court finds no just reason for filing this appeal before this court to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and petitioner did not take any lesson from the admitted facts for which finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge against the petitioner, therefore, this Court finds that this Appeal is also abuse of process of court. Hence, this special appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI ), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. /mamta/