R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) This is an unfortunate ease which despite being contested thrice at the stage of Deputy Director and before this court could not be decided on merits. As far back as 1967 petitioners claimed to have filed objection in respect of Khatas no. 95 and 207. What happened to this objection is shrouded in mystery and has been subject matter of serious dispute before consolidation authorities but on 24th August i 969 the petitioners filed fresh objection stating that the earlier objection filed by them was lost and they were exclusively tenure holders of land in dispute. It was contested by opposite parties not only on merits but on the question of limitation as well. The Consolidation Officer appears to have allowed the objection, against which opposite parties filed revision which was allowed and the order passed by Consolidation Officer was set aside. He was directed to decide the question of limitation afresh. After remand the Consolidation Officer again allowed the objection as opposite parties had not controverted affidavit filed in support of Section 5 application. He held that the allegation of the petitioners that they had filed earlier objection but it was not traceable remained un-controverted therefore they were entitled to benefit of Section 5 in the interest of justice. In revision this order was again set aside. The revising authority found that non-filing of counter affidavit was not material as the burden to explain each days delay was on the petitioners. It was further found that a receipt produced from the office of Assistant Consolidation Officer did not appear to be genuine. The Deputy Director was not satisfied that the conduct of the petitioners deserved any indulgence as it appears to him that the petitioners were in habit of moving delayed objections on ground that the earlier objection filed by them has been lost. He therefore set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and sent the case back to him for deciding afresh. Against this order petitioners presented writ petition in this court on 20th July 1970 which was admitted on 23rd December 1970. While moving this court the petitioners also appear to have filed review application before the Deputy Director Consolidation which was dismissed on 27th October 1970. After dismissal of review application the petitioners appears to have filed an application before the Consolidation Officer alleging that the original objection hied by them in 1967 was traceable and therefore the dispute be decided afresh. This application was in respect of Khata no. 207 only. On 2-9-71 the Consolidation Officer rejected the application and held that the petitioners were guilty of committing forgery. He found it as fact that the copies of the original file have been tampered with, Fresh objection has been put in and there has been cuttings also at places, The finding was endorsed by Deputy Director on 27th December 1971. These orders have also been challenged by writ petition No. 2324 of 1972.
(2.) Both these writ petitions although arising out of different orders are being decided by a common judgment. As regards writ Petition No. 2324 of 1972 it has been found by consolidation authorities that the petitioners were guilty of committing forgery. This finding is based on consideration of original record. It was examined by this court also. There appears to be no flaw in the finding recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer. This petition therefore fails and is dismissed.
(3.) As regards petition No. 4301 of 1970 there is no doubt that Deputy Director Consolidation was not justified in rejecting petitioner's case. If petitioners could substantiate their plea which prima facie they appear to have done by filing an affidavit which remained un-controverted there was no question of applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act. If objection was filed and it was lost the petitioners could not be made to suffer for it. But the learned Counsel for opposite parties is right in his submission that the petitioners have disabled themselves from getting any relief from this court in view of the finding that they were guilty of forgery and tampering with the record. The petitioners cannot be considered to have come with clean hands which is the basic requirement for getting any relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India no discretion can be exercised in favour of such persons in exercise of equity jurisdiction by this court.;