YADAV, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for quashing notification dated 11. 11. 1991 issued u/s. 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure 6) and the notice issued u/s. 9 of the said Act on 24. 4. 1993 (Annexure 7 ).
(2.) IT is pertinent to observe that by way of filing present writ petition, notification issued u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been challenged for the reason best known to the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the aforesaid annexures 6 & 7 of the writ petition are challenged by way of filing the instant writ petition on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner came to know about the land acquisition proceedings relating to the land in dispute when he received a notice issued u/s. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 24. 4. 1993. Prior to aforesaid date he had no information about acquisition proceedings. It is averred in the writ petition that after receipt of notice u/s. 9 of Land Acquisition Act on 24. 4. 1993 the petitioner came to know that notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been published on 22. 11. 1990 and the State Government had also published notification u/s. 6 of the said Act on 11. 11. 1991. It is averred in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that it was learnt by the petitioner that acquisition was proposed to be made for the development of the residents in Ranjeet Singh Scheme Sector 3 of Bharatpur. It is also averred that the aforesaid notifications in respect of land in question i. e. Khasra No. 512 had been made in the name of the father of the petitioner, namely, Prakash Singh, who expired long back in the year 1990, whereas, the instant proceedings on the acquisition have been initiated by notification u/sec. 4 of the said Act thereafter. After receipt of notice, contesting respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a detailed reply, taking preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner is guilty of material concealment in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is averred in paragraph 1 of the reply that after notification on 22. 11. 1990 u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by State Government, the petitioner himself, mother of the petitioner-Smt. Jairani and his brother Kapil Sarin had filed objections u/s. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 25. 2. 1991 before the Land Acquisition Officer. After decision on objections filed u/s. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, State of Rajasthan issued notification in the State Gazette on 11. 11. 1991 u/s. 6 of the said Act. Regarding wide publication with regard to acquisition of the land in dispute, it is averred in paragraph 2 of the reply to the writ petition filed by contesting respondents that the notification for land acquisition u/s. 4 was published in the State Gazette on 22. 11. 1990 with two daily newspapers i. e. `sandhya Jyoti' and `dainik Anima'. It is averred in paragraph 2 of the reply filed on behalf of respondents that the present writ petition has been filed after expiry of more than two years, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is apparent on the face of record that averments made in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the reply filed by respondents contents whereof are mentioned in the preceding paragraph remains uncontroverted. The petitioner failed to file rejoinder controverting the facts averred in the return filed by the respondents. In absence of rejoinder filed by petitioner in the present case averments made in reply inspire confidence. It is held that facts stated on affidavit if not controverted by filing counter affidavit or by filing rejoinder affidavit as the case may be such uncontroverted facts stated are ordinarily believable unless there are compelling reasons before the Court to disbelieve its contents. Here in the present case the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to demon-strate any compelling reasons which may lead to an inference that averments made in return filed by respondents are unworthy of credence. This act of petitioner tantamounts causing obstruction in due course of justice u/art. 226 of the Constitution. The stream of justice has to be kept pure and clear and no one can be permitted to take liberty to mislead the Court by wilfully and deliberately avoiding to disclose material facts. In fact such tendency aims at tricking a blow in dispensation of justice u/art. 226 of the Constitution where petitions are ordinarily decided on the basis of affdiavit. In the present case I am satisfied that the petitioner is guilty of material concealment in filing the present writ petition. He deliberately and wilfully avoided to disclose in the body of the averments of the writ petition that he had filed an objection u/s. 5-A of Land Acquisition Act which was dismissed.
(3.) ONCE the averments made in reply filed by respondents to the effect that after publication of the notification u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act the petitioner alongwith his other co-sharers filed objections u/s. 5-A of the said Act before the Land Acquisition Officer and after its rejection he filed the present writ petition whereas his other co-sharers had submitted to the order passed by Land Acquisition Officer u/s. 5-A of the Act is believed the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as it is not possible for this Court to pass an order in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction which may lead to a conflicting result. In the present case since the other co-sharers of the petitioner had submitted to the order passed by Land Acquisition Officer u/s. 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, therefore I decline to examine the legality and validity of the notification u/s. 6 of Land Acquisition Act and notice issued to the petitioner u/s. 9 of the said Act as it would lead to conflicting result. I have no hesitation to hold that once the petitioner filed his objections u/s. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act which was rejected on merit by Land Acquisition Officer he is not entitled to question the legality and validity of Annexures-6 & 7 annexed to the writ petition. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. Costs are made easy. .;