JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J. — The petitioner herein is a purchaser under sale deed dated 17-1-1962 from one Shri Dina Nath, marked as Annexure P-19 The property, which is the subject matter of the sale is described as all the property known as Central Hotel Stables Shimla, situate near Central Hotel, Shimla and bounded as follows : "East by Common Road (Passage) West by Municipal Road North by Central Hotel Additional House South by Municipal Road situated on Khasra No. 62/3 as shown in the certificate of sale No. 10135 dated 28-6-1961 together with all structures buildings and rights attached thereto or reputed or known to be so." 2. It is quite obvious from the above document itself that the vendor of the petitioner herein purchased the property under the sale certificate referred to therein. That sale certificate is itself marked as Annexure P-17, in which the property is described by the boundaries in the Schedule. In addition thereto, Khasra number is mentioned as 62/3. That is issued by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Ambala. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that all what was purchased by his vendor under the sale certificate referred to above, comprised 818 Sq. yards, known as Central Hotel, Stables and quarters, as the same was the subject matter of auction held by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act The contention is that inspite of the petitioners vendor having purchased 818 Sq. yards and the petitioner having become entitled to the said extent, an enquiry was initiated on a complaint given by one Shri H. D. Sardana and on such enquiry, the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 passed an order on 7th December, 1973 rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein. The said officer found in that order that the petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied an area measuring 337 Sq. yards and 6 Sq. feet out of Khasra No. 490/62 and he should be ejected therefrom. The claim of the petitioner that he had purchased 818 Sq. The said officer found in that order that the petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied an area measuring 337 Sq. yards and 6 Sq. feet out of Khasra No. 490/62 and he should be ejected therefrom. The claim of the petitioner that he had purchased 818 Sq. yards was negatived, A reference was made in that order to a judgment of Subordinate Judge, Kandaghat, on which reliance was placed by the petitioner herein to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to an extent 818 Sq. yards, as claimed by him The Officer pointed out that the said judgment had been upset on an appeal by judgment dated 9th September, 1965 when the parties to the civil proceeding entered into a compromise. By that compromise, the petitioner herein had accepted a much lesser extent about 300 Sq yards The petitioner had challenged the said compromise by Civil Suit No. 221/1 of 1974. He alleged that the compromise was brought about by fraud, coercion and misrepresentation. A specific issue was framed to that suit as regards fraud, coercion and misrepresentation and the Court found that the same was not made out. The Subordinate Judge 1st Class (II), Shimla by his judgment dated 11-1-1982 found against the contentions raised by the petitioner. He went into the evidence on record and found that the petitioner had purchased only 257 Sq. yards in Khasra No, 62/3 and his claim that he was entitled to more extent than that, was unjustified. In view of the said finding, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that the claim made by the petitioner was unsustainable. The said judgment was challenged in appeal by the petitioner before the District Judge and it was dismissed on merits on 23rd July, 1983 in C.M. A. No. 17-S/13 of 1982/58-S/13 of 1982. That was further challenged in the Second Appeal in R. S. A. No. 322 of 1983 in this Court, which was dismissed by judgment dated 28-3-1984. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for a larger extent than 257 Sq. yards was found against by the Civil Court and confirmed by this Court in the Second Appeal. 4. It should be mentioned here that the decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in a revision petition before the Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of Central Government under section 33 of the Act. 4. It should be mentioned here that the decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in a revision petition before the Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of Central Government under section 33 of the Act. That revision was dismissed on merits on 18-12-1981. A petition for review was filed by the petitioner to the same authority and that was dismissed as not maintainable. 5. The petitioner has in this writ petition challenged the correctness of the orders passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as well as the revisional authority- The facts set out already are sufficient to show that the claim of the petitioner is wholly untenable. Once a competent Civil Court has found that the petitioner is entitled only to 257 Sq. yards and nothing more than that, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition claiming that he had purchased 818 Sq. yards or a larger extent than that. The contention of the petitioner is that in the original auction notice and the sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioners vendor, khasra number had not been mentioned and it was introduced only later on a correspondence initiated by his vendor. This contention is not available to the petitioner inasmuch as the sale deed executed in his favour by his vendor clearly mentions the khasra number His vendor has given a statement before the Chief Settlement Commissioner that what he purchased was only an extent of 257 Sq. yards in Khasra No. 62/3 An attempt made by the petitioner to contend before the authorities that there was a fraud on the part of his vendor in getting the khasra number introduced in the sale certificate was rightly negatived by the said authorities. 6. It is contended before us that on a construction of all the relevant documents, it will be clear that what the petitioner purchased was an extent of 818 Sq, yards. For this purpose, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram, AIR 1965 SC 1994. The only question decided by the Supreme Court in that case was that the title to an auction purchaser shall pass when the full price was realized and not on the date on which the certificate was issued. That has no relevance in the present case. The only question decided by the Supreme Court in that case was that the title to an auction purchaser shall pass when the full price was realized and not on the date on which the certificate was issued. That has no relevance in the present case. The certificate had been issued in favour of the petitioners vendor in August 1961, when it was registered. The vendor of the petitioner had accepted the correctness of the certificate and has also given statement to the effect that the certificate represented correctly the area purchased by him. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that boundaries will prevail over the area or the extent of the property will not be available to him. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Raja Bahadur Narasingerji Gyanagerji since deceased {now represented by Raja Dhanarajagirji) v. Raja Panuganti Parthasaradhi Rayanim Garu and others. AIR 1924 PC 226, as also the judgment of the Madras High Court in Dharmakanny Nadar Siviseshamuthu and others v. Mahalingam Nadar Gopalakrishna Nadar and others, AIR 1963 Mad 147. Our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramkishorelal and another v. Kamalnarayan, AIR 1963 SC 890, has also been drawn. The effect of those rulings is only that all surrounding circumstances and the facts of each case have to be taken into account before the question of extent conveyed under a particular document is decided. In the present case, the matter is already concluded by the judgment of the Civil Court as pointed out already. On the face of the judgment of the Civil Court, it is not open to the petitioner herein to raise the same contention in this writ petition and claim that he is entitled to a larger extent than what has been found to be his property by the Civil Court. 7. Apart from that, the objection raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into a writ petition, particularly, when they relate to the title is immovable property is well founded. 8. We should also point out that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. 7. Apart from that, the objection raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into a writ petition, particularly, when they relate to the title is immovable property is well founded. 8. We should also point out that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Inspite of the fact that in appeal as early as in 1965, he was a party to a compromise decree before the appellate Court, he did not choose to mention the same in the writ petition. He referred to it only in the rejoinder after the opposite side pointed out the same. On the other hand, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Subordinate Judge, which decided the issue in his favour inspite of the fact that the said judgment was no longer in force in view of the compromise decree passed by the Appellate Court. The judgment in the Civil Suit in which the petitioner challenged the compromise had also been rendered by the trial Court before the writ petition was filed. No doubt, the appeal against that judgment was pending. But he ought to have made a reference to the judgment and also mentioned that he had filed an appeal challenging the said judgment, 9. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to disclose all the facts in the writ petition, he does not deserve any relief whatever in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. We find that there is no merit whatever in the writ petition and it is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs 5,000. CM. P. No. 1046 of 1982: In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, this application is also dismissed and the interim order is vacated. -