Judgment 1. Lachhman Dass, petitioner herein, through present petition filed by him under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seek issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Gram Panchayat of village Pattran, the second respondent herein, to deliver him the possession of the land which had been leased out to him on 6-12-1999 and to quash resolution dated 12-7-2001, Annexure P-5, whereby, said lease has been cancelled or in the alternative, to refund the lease money deposited by him on 6-12-1999 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 2. With a view to obtain possession and alternative relief, as mentioned above, all that has been pleaded is that the petitioner had taken Shamlat land on lease on 6-12-1999 and Rs. 35,000/- had been deposited, by him towards lease money. However, possession of the land had not been handed over to him till date. In the revenue record, Gauhsala has been shown in possession of the land in the dispute. Entry in favour of Gaushala was made on the basis of a report made by the Gram Panchayat to the Patwari. Although, the possession was not delivered to the petitioner yet the Gram Panchayat vide resolution dated 12-7-2001 has cancelled the lease in his favour and has instituted a petition for his ejectment. Thus, neither the possession of the land has been given to the petitioner nor the money deposited by him has been refunded. It is in the facts, as given above, that a prayer had been made for quashing resolution dated 12-7-2001 and for a direction to the Gram Panchayat either to deliver the possession of the land to the petitioner or in the alternative, to refund the lease money with interest, as mentioned above. 3. When the matter came up for motion hearing, the Honble Bench, then seized of the matter, passed the following order on 4-2-2002 : Contends that neither the possession of the land has been handed over to the petitioner nor has the lease money been refunded by the Gram Panchayat. Notice of motion to the respondents for 1-7-2002. Mr. G. S. Dhillon, Additional AG, Punjab on our asking accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Dasti also." 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No. 2 has entered defence and hotly contested the cause of the petitioner. Notice of motion to the respondents for 1-7-2002. Mr. G. S. Dhillon, Additional AG, Punjab on our asking accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Dasti also." 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No. 2 has entered defence and hotly contested the cause of the petitioner. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has, inter alia, been pleaded that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material and important facts from this Court. The petitioner has intentionally not disclosed the important and material facts with an intention to prejudice the mind of this Court. It is further pleaded that village Pattran was merged in Notified Area Committee, Pattran vide notification dated 5-5-1997. However, vide notification dated 6-4-1998, the Government of Punjab, excluded the area of village Pattran from the existing limits of Notified Area Commtitee/ Nagar Panchayat, Pattran, Election of Gram Panchayat, Pattran, was held on 27-11-2000 and Gurnam Singh was elected its Sarpanch. During the period from 5-5-1997 to 28-11-2000, there was no elected Panchayat in village Pattran and the Block Development and Panchayat Officer was managing the affairs of the Panchayat as its Administrator. Gram Panchayat, Pattran, through its Administrator, passed resolution dated 18-11-1999 to give the land in dispute on lease. Auction was held for giving the land in dispute on lease on 6-12-1999 and the same was given on lease to the petitioner and lease deed was executed containing the terms and conditions of lease and immediately on the same date, possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner, who is also the President of Shri Gaushala Pattran, however, with mala fide intention got changed the Khasra Girdawaris of the land in dispute, in collusion with the revenue Patwari of the area in favour Shri Gaushala, Pattran and also made permanent construction on the land. All these things were done by the petitioner with an intention to grab the land in dispute from the Gram Panchayat. Since the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed, therefore, Gram Panchayat, vide resolution dated 12-7-2001, terminated/cancelled the lease deed and thereafter informed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the land in dispute to the Panchayat. Since the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed, therefore, Gram Panchayat, vide resolution dated 12-7-2001, terminated/cancelled the lease deed and thereafter informed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the land in dispute to the Panchayat. However, when the petitioner refused to do so, the Panchayat, on 3-8-2001, filed a petition under S. 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Development and Panchayat Officer and on the same date, the District Development and Panchayat Officer passed stay order and directed the petitioner not to raise any type of construction thereon. Immediately thereafter, the answering respondent also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner in the Civil Court on 6-8-2001 and learned Civil Court had also granted interim stay to the Gram Panchayat. Since the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute and had also raised pucca construction in violation of the terms of the lease deed with an intention to grab the land in dispute, the answering respondent had also lodged a complaint/DDR No. 12 dated 4-8-2001 against the petitioner to the police. The petitioner, due to the pressure of the abovesaid proceedings, i.e., the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Civil Court and police, relinquished the possession of the land in dispute in favour of the Gram Panchayat and as such the Gram Panchayat came into possession of the land. Since the Gram Panchayat came into possession of the land, therefore, the District Development and Panchayat Officer vide order dated 29-11-2001, disposed of the ejectment petition of the Gram Panchayat and the Civil Court also decreed the suit of the Gram Panchayat for permanent injunction against the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 9-8-2002. It is then pleaded that the petitioner got filed one suit on behalf of Gopal Gaushala Committee, Pattran against the Gram Panchayat for permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from taking forcible possession or demolishing any type of construction raised in the land. Learned Civil Court dismissed the application of Gopal Gaushala Committee for grant of ad interim injunction, vide order dated 7-11-2001, aggrieved, Gopal Ghaushala Committee filed an appeal before the Ist Appellate Court, which was dismissed on 8-5-2002. Learned Civil Court dismissed the application of Gopal Gaushala Committee for grant of ad interim injunction, vide order dated 7-11-2001, aggrieved, Gopal Ghaushala Committee filed an appeal before the Ist Appellate Court, which was dismissed on 8-5-2002. It is then pleaded that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands as, on one hand, he has taken the suit land on lease and also took the possession thereof on the same date and thereafter with mala fide intention to grab the land in dispute, raised permanent construction over the same and also got the entries of Khasra Girdwaris transferred, in collusion with the Halqa Patwari, in favour of the abovesaid Gaushala, of which he is the President. Furthermore, on 17-10-2001, he got filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat, from Gaushala Committee, Pattran, where application for ad interim injunction was sought to be maintained but the same was dismissed. 5. The petitioner had filed replication, primarily stating therein that he has nothing to do with the Gaushala and the construction raised on the land in dispute was by the Gaushala. The documents referred to in the written statement and, in particular, Annexure R-2/3, showing the petitioner to be In-charge of the Gaushala, are stated to be forged documents. 6. We have heard learned counsel representing the parties and examined the records of the case. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, as mentioned above, it appears to us that the petitioner is the one, who is running the Gaushala and was instrumental in getting the unauthorised construction made on the land, subject-matter of dispute. The aforesaid conclusion is clear from the stark fact that the petitioner has failed to state in the replication, as to how the Gaushala came to occupy the land when it was leased out to the petitioner and not to the Gaushala. The petitioner, therefore, in contravention of the terms of the lease, made a construction on the land, which had been given to him on lease for five years. The Gram Panchayat appears to be justified in cancelling the said lease. The petitioner, in the circumstances aforesaid, cannot be given possession of the land, subject-matter of dispute, nor granted refund of lease money. The Gram Panchayat appears to be justified in cancelling the said lease. The petitioner, in the circumstances aforesaid, cannot be given possession of the land, subject-matter of dispute, nor granted refund of lease money. That apart, the petitioner blissfully concealed the civil litigation that was initiated by the Gram Panchayat against him or for that matter, initiated against the Gram Panchayat by the Gaushala. He has only referred to some eviction proceedings against him while filing the present petition and that too without giving any detail, i.e., as to on what ground the eviction has been sought for. Thus, he is certainly guilty of concealing the material facts from this Court. He, thus, deserves no relief from this Court under extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in it under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. Petition dismissed.