Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dt. 9.12.09 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Gr. III, Government of Rajasthan, refusing to allot the land applied for by the petitioner on the ground that the category of the land being gair mumkin talab, it cannot be allotted keeping in view a Bench decision of this Court in Abdul Rahman's case. That apart, the communication dt. 05.07.2013, whereby District Collector, Pratapgarh has informed the Joint Secretary (M), Government of Rajasthan, that the land in question which is categorised as gair mumkin talab, cannot be allotted, keeping in view the decision of this Court in Abdul Rahman's case, is also impugned in the present writ petition. In response to the show cause notice issued, a reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents raising a preliminary objection that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the land in question was rejected vide order dt. 09.12.2009 and aggrieved thereby, a writ petition bearing No. 9864/10 preferred by the petitioner, has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dt. 27.10.2010. The certified copies of the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner and the order dt. 27.10.2010 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dismissing the said writ petition after consideration on merits, are placed on record as Annexure R/1 and R/2 respectively.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a bare perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner had questioned the legality of the order dt. 9.12.09 passed by the State Government, rejecting its claim for allotment of the land in question. Drawing the attention of the Court to the order dt. 27.10.10, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, learned counsel submitted that the writ petition was dismissed by the Court taking into consideration a Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Abdul Rahman vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in, 2004 (4) WLC, 435. Learned counsel submitted that while dismissing the writ petition, taking into consideration the factum of the construction having been raised by the petitioner over the land in question without there being allotment in its favour, the Court has specifically observed that the conduct of the petitioner in raising construction without allotment of the land, is all the more a good reason for rejecting the petition. Learned counsel submitted that while questioning the legality of the order dt. 9.12.09, the petitioner has deliberately concealed the factum of earlier writ petition questioning the legality of the said order being dismissed by this Court and thus, the conduct of the petitioner disentitles it from invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and the writ petition preferred deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Learned counsel would submit that the order dt. 9.12.09 has attained finality and the communication dt. 5.7.13 sent by the District Collector, Pratapgarh informing the Joint Secretary (M), regarding the factual position not determining the claim of the petitioner afresh, does not give rise to any fresh cause of action and thus, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner while concealing the earlier concluded litigation between the parties, is gross misuse of process of this Court.
(3.) On being asked by the Court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has come to know about the earlier litigation between the parties only by way of reply to the petition. Learned counsel would submit that in the present writ petition, apart from the order dt. 9.12.09, the petitioner has also questioned legality of order dt. 5.7.13 of the District Collector, Pratapgarh and therefore, there being fresh cause of action, it cannot be said that the petitioner has misused the process of the Court.;