Holding

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant’s misrepresentation and suppression of material facts bar any relief.

Summary

The appellant, Dalip Singh, sought to set aside an ex‑parte order that declared 18.22 acres of his late father Praveen Singh's land surplus under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The tenure‑holder had been served a notice in 1975 but failed to object; an ex‑parte order was made in December 1975. Six months later he applied to set aside the order claiming a ten‑month illness, without any medical proof. The High Court, relying on a misleading affidavit that the father never received the notice, stayed the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The appellate authority again dismissed the appeal for lack of condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the appellant and his son deliberately suppressed material facts and made false statements before the courts, thereby polluting the course of justice, and dismissed the appeal. No costs were imposed as the surplus land had already been distributed to landless persons.

Issues considered

Whether a litigant who suppresses material facts or makes false statements before a court is entitled to relief.
Whether the appeal can be dismissed on the ground of polluting the course of justice.
Whether the lack of condonation of delay justifies dismissal of the application to set aside the ex‑parte order.
Whether the High Court's interim stay, obtained through misrepresentation, can be set aside.

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960s. 10(1), s. 10(2), s. 11, s. 9(2-A)

Subjects

misrepresentationsuppression of factsclean hands doctrineequityland ceiling Actex‑parte ordercondonation of delayspecial leave petitionArticle 136Article 226polluting the course of justice

Judgment

[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 111

- DALIP SINGH
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002)
A

DECEMBER 3, 2009
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

Equity - Misrepresentation and suppression of facts, in
court proceedings - By litigant - Effect of - Notice by
prescribed authority calling upon tenure-holder as regards c
declaration of surplus land under Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act - Despite several adjournments, tenure-holder not filing
objection to the notice - Prescribed authority ex-parte
declaring certain area of tenure-holder as surplus - After
lapse of about six months tenure-holder filing application for
D
setting aside the ex-parte order - Appeal thereagainst
-+
dismissed for default - Matter when carried to High Court,
direction to appellate authority to decide the matter afresh -
Appellate authority dismissing the appeal holding that
application for condonation of delay not filed and also in
application for setting aside ex-parte order no cause was
E
shown for condonation of delay - Writ petition - High Court
by interim order staying operation of orders by prescribed
authority and appellate authority - On appeal, held: appeal
·~
liable to be dismissed for polluting course of justice by
misleading the authorities and the courts - The tenure-holder F
suppressed the fact of his having received the notice, in
.> application for setting aside ex-parte order - False statement
given before Supreme Court by LR of the tenure-holder that
he had not received the notice - Tenure-holder also did not
approach the High Court with clean hands making misleading G
statements - The statements regarding delay in approaching
the court due to illness of tenure-holder, not substantiated -
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960.
111 H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558; Welcome
Hotel andOrs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.etc. AIR
1983 SC 1015; G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and Ors. v.
Governor of Karnataka and Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1726; S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu {dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead)
B by L.Rs. and Ors. JT 1993 (6) SC 331; Prestige Lights Ltd.
v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449; A. V. Papayya Sastry
and Ors. v. Government of A.P. and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1546;
Sunil Poddar and Ors. v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC
326; K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.
(2008) 12 SCC 481; G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S.
c Patel and Ors. (2009) 3 sec 141, relied on.

R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners (1917) 1
K.8. 486, referred to.

D Case Law Reference :
AIR 1963 SC 1558 Relied on. Para 2

AIR 1983 SC 1015 Relied on. Para 3

AIR 1991 SC 1726 Relied on. Para 4
E
JT 1993 (6) SC 331 Relied on. Para 5

(2007) 8 sec 449 Relied on. Para 6

(1917) 1 K.B. 486 Referred to. Para 6 '
F
AIR 2007 SC 1546 Relied on. Para 7

(2oos) 2 sec 326 Relied on. Para 8 ...
(2008) 12 sec 481 Relied on. Para 9
G (2009) 3 sec 141 Relied on. Para 9

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5239 of 2002.

From the Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2001 of the High
H
DALIP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 113

~- Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. A
22790 of 1990.

Shambhu Prasad Singh, Prashante Jha, Ms. Manjula
Gupta, for the Appellant.

Pramod Swarup, L.K. Pandey, S.K. Dwivedi, Amit Singh, B
Ms. Sushma Verma, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Dr. Krishan
Singh Chauhan, K.C. Lamba, Chand Kiran, Kartar Singh, for
the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered c
ORDER

- ~
1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic
values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence).
Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the
people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted
D

an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue
.y. in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to
tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences.
However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes E
in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the
old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so
intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take
shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of
' facts in the court proceedings. In fast 40 years, a new creed of F
litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do
not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to
falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order
to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the
courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now G
well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the
stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with
tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
\;.
' 2. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, this
Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the leave H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 16 (ADDL) S.C.R.

A granted to the appellant by making the following observations:

"It is of utmost importance that in making material
statements and setting forth grounds in applications for
special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution,
care must be taken not to make any statements which are
B
inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes
statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the
petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray
the confidence of the Court by making statements which
c are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material
statements made by the appellant in his application for

D
special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may
have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on
the strength of what he characterizes as t
-
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for
special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the
conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
E appellant ought to be revoked."

3. In Welcome Hotel and others v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015, the Court held
that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in
F its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case.

4. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and others v. Governor
of Karnataka and another AIR 1991 SC 1726, the Court
denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that
the award was not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within
G the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act
because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While
dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed:

"Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special
H Leave Petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to
DALIP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 115

know about these orders only when the respondents A
appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter
affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct
bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of
the same certainly amounts to suppression of material
facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions B
are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the
relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary
and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief
must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails
to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is c
liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the
Special Leave Petitions."

5. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v.
Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others JT 1993 (6) SC 331,
the Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained D
by withholding an important document from the court, the party
concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the
litigation.

6. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 E
SCC 449, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of
law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the
High Court's jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution
is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any F
reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted
facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully
justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of
Scrutton, L.J. in R v Kensington Income Tax Commissioners G
(1917) 1 K.B. 486, and observed:

"In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the
conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the
applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 16 (AOOL.) S.C.R.

~

A relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the
Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without
adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been

B
evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous
litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving
it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure
,..•
of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are
not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the
very functioning of the writ courts would become
impossible."
c 7. In A. V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of
A.P. and others, AIR 2007 SC 1546, the Court held that Article
136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party. It confers
discretion on this Court to grant leave to appeal in appropriate
cases. In other words, the Constitution has not made the
D Supreme Court a regular Court of Appeal or a Court of Error.
~
This Court only intervenes where justice, equity and good
conscience require such intervention. I'-

8. In Sunil Poddar & Ors. v. Union Bank of India (2008)
E 2 sec 326, the Court held that while exercising discretionary
and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution,
the facts and circumstances of the case should be seen in their
entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the
appellant has not come forward with clean hands, has not
F candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he
intends to delay the proceedings, then the Court will non-suit
him on the ground of contumacious conduct.

9. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and
others (2008) 12 sec 481, the court held that the jurisdiction
...
G of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable
and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner
'
approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and
put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or
H suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there
DALIP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 117

is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the A
petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be
dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the
claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others
v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141.
B
10. This appeal, which is directed against order dated
21.5.2001 passed by the Allahabad High Court is illustrative
of how unscrupulous litigants can mislead the authorities
entrusted with the task of implementing the provisions of U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, "the C
Act") and the courts for retaining possession of the surplus land.
The tenure-holder - Praveen Singh did not file statement in
terms of Section 9(2-A) of the Act in respect of his holding as
on 24.1.1971. After about four years, the Prescribed Authority
issued notice dated 29.11.1975 under Section 10(2) of the Act
and called upon Shri Praveen Singh to show cause as to why D
the statement prepared under Section 10( 1) of the Act may not
be taken as correct and his land may not be declared surplus
accordingly. A copy of the statement was sent to Shri Praveen
Singh along with the notice in C.L.H. Form No.4. For the sake
of convenient reference, the notice is reproduced below: E

"C.L.H. FORM NO. 4

(See Rule 8)

(Form of Notice under Section 10(2) of the imposition of F
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961)

To,
Name of tenure-holder Sri Praveen Singh
With parentage s/o. Shri Raghubir Singh and G
Address r/o Village Tisotara, P.0 Khas, Pargana Kirat
Pur, Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor.
Whereas you have failed to submit a statementihave
furnished incomplete/incorrect statement in respect of all
your holdings in the State of Uttar Pradesh including H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
~

A holdings of your family members with all the required
particulars within the time mentioned in the notice in C.L.H.
Form 1, published under Section 9;

And whereas the statement of all holdings held by
B you in the State on 8th June, 1973, statement showing
proposed ceiling area applicable to you and the proposed
surplus l~nd have been prepared under sub-section (1) of
Section 10, they are sent to you herewith and you are •
hereby called upon to show cause within a period of 15
days from the date of service of this notice, why the said
c statement be not taken as correct.

On your failure to dispute the correctness of the
statements in any court, within the time allowed, the
aforesaid statement shall be treated as final and ceiling
D area applicable to you and the surplus land shall be
determined accordingly .
..
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day
of 29-11-1975.
E Sid-
Signatur~ of the Prescribed Authority of the Sub-
Division Prescribed Authority
Tehsil Najibabad."
11. The notice was delivered to Shri Praveen Singh on
F 3.12.1975, but he neither filed any objection to the proposed
determination of his surplus land nor sought extension of nme
for the said purpose. After service of notice, the Prs,,cribed
Authority adjourned the case on 10.1~.1975 and again on
19.12.1975 apparently with the hope that the tenure-holder may
G file objection to the statement prepared under Section 10(1 ).
This is evident from the proceeding sheets of the two dates,
which are reproduced below:

Proceedings dated 10.12.1975
H 10.12.1965 File received after service of notice on
DALIP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 119

the tenure-holder on 3.12.1975. A

It is ordered that the file be put up on 19.12.1975 after
receipt of objections.
Sci/-
Prescribed Authority B
Proceedings dated 19 .12 .1975

19.12.1975 File put up. The tenure-holder has not filed
any objection despite service.
c
It is ordered that the file be put up for ex-
parte orders on 27.12.1975.
Sd/-
Prescribed Authority"
12.- On 27.12.1975, the Prescribed Authority noted that Shri D
Praveen Singh has not filed any objection and declared that
18.22 acres of irrigated land was surplus in the hands of the
tenure-holder. After six months and twelve days, Shri Praveen
Singh submitted an application dated 8.7.1976 along with what'
was termed as an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority and E
prayed that ex parte order dated 27.12.19?5
,.,., may be set aside
and he may be given opportunity to1ile objections and tender
~ evidence. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on
the same day i.e. 8. 7.1976 by observing that no valid ground
has been made out for reconsidering the matter after six F
months. The appeal preferred by Shri Praveen Singh against
the order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed by
Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Allahabad (Appellate
Authority) in default because no one appeared on the date of
hearing. The restoration application filed by Shri Praveen Singh G
1
was dismissed on 27.8.1980. He then challenged the orders
of. the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority in Writ
Petition No. 8342/1980, which was allowed by the High Court
and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority with a
direction to decide the application of Shri Praveen Singh afresh H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A in accordance with law.

13. In compliance of the direction given by the High Court,
the Appellate Authority reconsidered the appeal of Shri Praveen
Singh but dismissed the same on the ground that the tenure-
s holder had not filed an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of the delay and even in the
application filed for setting aside the ex parte order, no cause
was shown for the delay. The Appellate Authority also observed +
that the tenure-holder had not denied receipt of notice dated
29.11.1975 issued under Section 10(2) of the Act, but did not
C file any objection till the passing of ex parte order on 27.12.1975
and that his assertion of having come to know of the ex parte
order from Lekhpal Halqa on 7. 7.1976 is not believable. It
appears that after remand of the matter by the High Court, Shri
Praveen Singh died a.nd, therefore, his legal representatives
D (including the appellant herein) were substituted in his place. ).

14. The legal representatives of Shri Praveen Singh jointly
filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 22790/1990 and
prayed for quashing of orders dated 27.12.1975, 8.7.1976,
E 7.8.1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate
Authority respectively. They also prayed for issue of a direction
to the Appellate Authority to remand the case to the Prescribed
Authority for entertaining their objections. In paragraph 3 of the
writ petition, the following statement was made:
F "That the petitioner's late father, against whom the
proceecings had been initiated under Section 10(2) of the
Ceiling Act, filed application on 8.7.1976 supp:=-:-;.tid by an
affidavit stating therein clearly that he was seriously ill for
about ten months as such he \'las not in a position to file
G objection, and as a matter of fact he did not have any
knowledge of the date of the proceedings that were being '
conducted before the prescrioed authority. True copy of
the application dated 8. 7.1976 of petitioners' late father
is annexed herewith as Annexure 2. True copy of the
H affidavit filed in support of the application dated 8. 7.1976
DALIP SINGH v. STATE OFU.P. ~ORS. 121

of the petitioners' father is annexed herewith as annexure A
3."

(Emphasis added)·

15. By an order dated 7.9.1990, the learned Single Judge
of the Allahabad High Court stayed the operation of the orders 8
passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority.
The interim order remained operative till 21.5.2001 that is the
t date on which' the writ petition was finally dismissed and during
the interregnum the appellant continued to enjoy the property.
c
16. In the special leave petition filed against the order of
ihe High Court, notice was issued on 12.10.2001, but the
appellants prayer for stay was declined. Thereafter, the surplus
land of the tenure-holder was distributed among the landless o
persons who were joined as parties pursuant to order dated
-< 27.3.2006 passed in I.A. No. 9/2004.

17. After service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed
counter in the form of an affidavit of Shri Pradip Kumar Singh,
Additional Tehsildar, District Bijnor, U.P. In his affidavit, Shri E
. Pradip Kumar gave details of the steps taken by the
Prescribed Authority in terms of Section 10( 1) and 10(2) of the
Act and made a categorical assertion that notice issued on
~ 29.11.1975 was duiy served upon Shri Praveen Singh on
3.12.1975. This is evident from paragraphs 4(iv) and (v) of the F
counter affidavit read as under:

"(iv) That the averments of facts made in the list of dates
against date 7. 7.1976 are not admitted being incorrect.
The notice in CLH Form No. 4 having been served on the G
tenure-holder on 3.12.1975, it was for him to have filed his
objection. It was for the tenure-holder to have managed his
affairs. It is not for a Court or an Authority to communicate
to the tenure-holder each and every order passed by it
once service of the notice is complete, the Act does not H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A require that each and every date of proceedings and the ~
copy or information about the final order ex parte or
otherwise be served O[l him. The tenure-holder avoided to
file his objections since he had none. The statement of
surplus land is prepared by the revenue authorities in
B accordance with the provisions of the Act which is
prepared on the basis of revenue records of land held by
a tenure-holder in his name and there is ·Presumption of
correctness of the revenue record.'
t
(v) That the averments of fact in list of date against date
c 8.7.1976 are not admitted as stated. It is submitted that
an application dated 8.7.1976 filed by the tenure-holder
did not dispute service of notice in CLH Form No. 4 dated
29.11.1975. The application was of a general nature. If a
tenure-holder having been asked to file objections within
D 15 days of the date of service of him 'chooses not to do
so', would proceed to a presumption that he has nothing
to say. Section 11 o the Act provides that where a tenure- I>
holder chooses not to dispute and not to file any objection
to ihe statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority
E under Section 1O of the Act within the stipulated period,
the Prescribed Authority 'shall' accordingly determine the
surplus land of the tenure-holder. Sub-section (2) of
Section 11 of the Act further provides that where an
application is made by a tenure-holder within thirty days
F of the date of an order under sub-section (11) of the Act, le
that being a statutory duly cast on the Prescribed Authority.
In the present case the Prescribed Authority after passing
order dated 27.12.1975 fixed the next date as 27.1.1976
i.e. after 30 days and it is only on 27.1.1976 that the
G Prescribed Authority sent notification regarding publication
of surplus land in official Gazette which was so published
on 5.6.1976."
t
18. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, son of the appellant Dalip
Singh and grandson of late Shri Praveen Singh filed rejoinder
H
DALIP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 123

~ affidavit dated 18th February, 2002. In paragraph 3 of the A
rejoinder affidavit Shri Sunil Kumar Singh made the following
statement:-

"That it is denied categorically that the father of the
petitioner had ever received the notice dated 29.11.1975
8
along with the statement of surplus land, prepared under
section 10(1) of the Act. It is humbly stated that father of
the petitioner could not file any show cause without going
through the above referred statement prepared under
' Section 10(1) of the Act."
c
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
scrutinized the record. In our opinion, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed only on the ground that the tenure-holder Shri
Praveen Singh did not state correct facts in the application filed
by him on 8. 7.1976 before the Prescribed Authority for setting D
aside the ex parte order and the appellant did not approach
~ the High Court with clean hands inasmuch as, by making a
misleading statement in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, an
impression was created that the tenure-holder did not know of
the proceedings initiated by the Prescribed Authority. By E
making the said statement, the appellant succeeded in
persuading the High Court to pass an interim order which
resulted in frustrating the efforts made by the concerned
authority to distribute the surplus land among landless persons.
~ Even before this Court, a patently false statement has been F
made in the rejoinder affidavit on the issue of receipt of notice
dated 29.11.1975 by Shri Praveen Singh.

20. A perusal of application dated 8.7.1976 submitted by
Shri Praveen Singh for setting aside ex parte order dated
27.12.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority makes it clear G
that he had pleaded his continuous illness for ten months as
the cause for his inability to file objection. In paragraph 2 of the
application, Shri Praveen Singh made a suggestive assertion
that he had no knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the
Prescribed Authority and he came to know about the case H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A having been decided ex parte only on 7.7.1976 when he went
to Lekhpal to procure memo. There was not even a whisper in
the application that notice dated 29.11.1975 issued by the
Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of the Act had not
been served upon him and on that account he could not file
B objections within 15 days. The application filed by Shri Pravee!n
Singh was not supported by any medical certificate or oth1~r
evidence which could prima facie establish that he was really
sick for ten months. This is the reason why the Prescribed
Authority refused to reconsider order dated 27.11.1975 and the
c Appellate Authority declined to entertain his prayer for remand
of the case to the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of fresh
determination of surplus area case. Notwithstanding this, in tlhe
writ petition filed before the High Court a misleading statement
was made that due to serious illness, Shri Praveen Singh could
not file objection and, as a matter of fact, he did not have any
0
knowledge of the dates of proceedings which were conducted
by the Prescribed Authority. In view of that statement, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court felt persuaded to stay
the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate
Authority which, as mentioned above, resulted in frustration of
E the action to be taken by the concerned authority for distribution
of the surplus land to landless persons for a good period of
more than eleven years and enabled the heirs of Shri Praveen
Singh to retain ·possession of the surplus land and enjoy ithe
same. Before the High Court also, no evidence was produced
F in support of the assertion regarding serious illness of Shri
Praveen Singh. Insofar as this Court is concerned, Shri Sunil
Kumar Singh, grandson of Shri Praveen Singh and son of the
appellant, boldly made a false statement that his grandfather
did not receive notice dated 29.11.1975 along with the
G statement of surplus land prepared under Section 10(1) and he
could not file any show cause without going through the
statement. We are amazed at the degree of audacity with which
Shri Sunil Kumar Singh could make a patently false statement
on oath.
H
DALIP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 125

21. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that A
in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts
have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of
the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this
Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to
the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in B
polluting the course of justice. Therefore, we do not find any
justification to interfere with the order under challenge or
entertain the appellant's prayer for setting aside the orders
passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority.

22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We would have
c
saddled the appellants with exemplary costs but, keeping in
view the fact that possession of the surplus land was taken in
2002 and the same has been distributed among landless poor
persons, we refrain from doing so.
D
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.