' Through this Constitutional Petition, Sheroo and 4 other petitioners seek declaration to the effect that the orders, dated 12-9-1977 and 17-6-1990 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The dispute relates to Khasra Nos. 31/16 and 31/25 situate in Chak No,180/EB, Tehsil and District Vehari. Elahi Bakhsh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was allotted the disputed land on 31-10-1951. This allotment was cancelled by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 23-11-1956. Elahi Bakhsh challenged the order of cancellation of allotment vide Writ Petition No,605-R of 1958, which was accepted. Before the order of the High Court could be implemented, the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Vehari, allotted the disputed land to Suleman and Jewan, respondents Nos.2 and 3 on 12-9-1977 and 18-8-1977 respectively.
' It may be noted here that the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No, 1234-R of 1977 seeking implementation of the order passed in Writ Petition No,605-R of 1958. The writ petition was partly accepted on 26-9-1978. However, the disputed Khasra numbers were not mentioned in the judgment. In 1989, the petitioners moved an application before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, respondent No,1, seeking correction of the mistake and implementation of the order, dated 26-9-1978 of the High Court, which was rejected on 17-6-1990. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that since the allotment of the disputed Khasra numbers was never cancelled from the name of Elahi Bakhsh, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, therefore, the application of the petitioners has been rejected without any legal and factual justification.
4. Parawise comments and report submitted by Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, respondent No,1, shows that Sheroo, petitioner No,1, was present before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, on 12-9-1977 when the disputed Khasra numbers were allotted to the respondents and he had admitted that he was an illegal occupant of Khasra No,31/25.
5. Appearing voluntarily, the learned counsel for private respondents Nos.2 and 3 have brought to the notice of the Court that before filing this writ petition, petitioners had filed a civil suit against the order of the allotment of the disputed Khasras to the respondents and the plaint was rejected, but this fact has been suppressed in this writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has frankly admitted the filing of the civil suit and the rejection of the plaint. He has not given any satisfactory explanation of the suppression of this material fact in this Constitutional Petition. It is, thus, very much obvious that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. The learned Assistant Commissioner, while rejecting the application of the petitioners vide the impugned order, has not flouted the provisions of law.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders. The disputed Khasras were allotted to the respondent in the year 1977, but the application for the correction was made in the year 1989. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation for this inordinate delay.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the Constitutional powers of this Court, with the well-reasoned order of respondent No,1. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.