- (1.) The petitioners, who secured allotments under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 suffered a partial cancellation of allotment when it was found that there had been an excess allotment made to the extent of 4 standard acres and 9 1/4 units. The cancellation of allotment took place in relation to properties situated in village Mandiala. Notwithstanding the cancellation, the allottees sold the properties to the private purchasers arrayed as private respondents in this writ petition and when this was noticed, the private purchasers applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner stating that they were bona fide purchasers and they were not aware of the cancellation made against their vendors. The Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted the contention and directed the authorities to serve appropriate notices to the vendors and take proceedings for cancellation of the properties allotted to them allotted elsewhere of an extent equivalent to the properties, which had been made the subject of cancellation at Mandiala village. The petitioners, in spite of service did not appear and an ex parte order was passed. They challenged the cancellation of allotment of the properties obtained elsewhere in Pandori Waraich village on the ground that the sale of the properties at Mandiala village, despite cancellation of allotment could have been proceeded against for fraud by the purchasers in a criminal Court or the purchasers could have taken action for the loss occurred by the unlawful sale but the Commissioner himself would not have a jurisdiction to cancel an allotment rightly secured for the properties in Pandori villlage. The same arguments is before this Court as well.
(2.) I am not prepared to examine the petitioners' case on merits in a self-confessed act of fraud, which the petitioners had made by selling the properties over which they did not have title and which had been cancelled by the State. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be invoked by persons, who are otherwise undeserving of the Court's intervention. The Court of equitable jurisdiction in writ proceedings under Article 226 will balance competing interests, prevent fraud and promote interests of justice, public interest and honesty Ritesh Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2010 10 SCC 677. A prerogative writ remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party, who is invoking such jurisdiction Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, 2007 8 SCC 449. This Court will decline to intervene in favour of the petitioners, who admit in this writ petition as well as in contentions before the authorities, whose orders are impeached that they could be guilty of fraud but still they should be favoured with the retention of allotment, which had already been made in their favour.
(3.) The writ petition is dismissed.;