JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash notice dated 23.2.2011 (Annex.-l) and to recover the amount mentioned in the notice from respondents No. 6 and 7 as being purchaser of the property in question. 2. As per facts .of the case, Tehsildar (Revenue), Padampur issued notice dated 23.2.2011 for attachment/auction of the property of the petitioner for the reason that amount of Rs. 3,95,906/- is due towards the Government department which is District Industrial Centre, Sriganganagar. The petitioner took loan from the respondent Bank for establishment of industrial unit but, due to non-payment of said loan, the respondent Co-operative Bank initiated recover}' proceedings and attached the property in question and auctioned the property of the petitioner. On 29.8.2007 the auction took place for the property in question and against the auction proceedings the petitioner preferred revision petition before the competent authority. 3. As per the petitioner, in the auction proceedings, there was condition that all dues and surcharge would be paid by the purchaser which means that the said property was sold by auction along with dues and surcharge, therefore, the respondent department intimated the respondent Bank for their dues because respondents No. 6 and 7 already purchased the property in question along with the liabilities. 4. The petitioner's contention is that the respondent Bank assured the petitioner that the sale of the property in question has been made along with all dues but the respondent Bank neither paid such dues to the Government department, therefore, it is submitted that the notice Annex.-1 issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Padampur may be quashed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's industry was attached by the respondent Bank and sold by auction with the condition that all the dues upon the property will be borne by the purchaser, therefore, the proceedings initiated for recovery of the Industry Department is to be paid by the purchaser of the factory/property of the petitioner; but, the Tehsildar (Revenue), Padampur has wrongly initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the Land Revenue Act, therefore, the impugned notice issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue) may be quashed. 6. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 6 and 7 vehemently argued that the petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation and concealment of fact because against the auction proceedings so many litigations were initiated and decided by the competent authorities concerned but except the fact of revision petition no other facts have been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. While inviting attention of the Court towards para 4 of the preliminary objection, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed various litigations filed by him viz., before the Arbitrator, Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and writ petitions before this Court, therefore, he is guilty of concealment of material facts. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent purchaser further invited my attention towards the fact that the petitioner is misinterpreting the condition No. 6 of the auction notice because the said condition is not part of sale letter dated 5.11.2007 issued in favour of respondents No. 6 and 7 and, consequently, the said condition is applicable with regard to dues upon the property in question such as property tax etc. The outstanding against the petitioner is with regard to subsidy availed by him from the District Industry Centre, Sriganganagar, therefore, the dues mentioned in Annex.-1 is regarding misuse of the subsidy taken by the petitioner for purchase of diesel generator set but the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed before this Court that the present recovery notice is in connection with misuse of the subsidy for installation of the diesel generator set, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, 1 have perused Annex.-1 by which the Tehsildar (Revenue), Padampur issued notice to the petitioner under Sections 255 and 256 under the Land Revenue Act, in which, it is incorporated that there is dues of Rs. 3,95,906/- which shall be deposited otherwise the property mentioned in the notice will be attached and auctioned; meaning thereby, the proceedings was initiated by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Padampur with regard to Government subsidy which is misutilized by the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent purchaser who purchased the property in question is liable to pay the dues upon the property. The subsidy is incentive which is granted by the State Government for establishment of any industrial unit and that subsidy is alleged to have been misutilized by the petitioner, therefore, he is individually responsible for payment of the said amount and that cannot be said to be liability of the property in question. 9. It is also required to be observed that undisputedly various litigations were initiated as mentioned in para 4 of the reply which reads as under: "4. That the petitioner by the present writ petition has also concealed material fact from this Hon'ble Court and deliberately does not disclose the various litigation filed by the petitioner before different Courts i.e. Arbitrator, in the Court of Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, filing of writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and there is chequred history of litigation which was admittedly does not disclose by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is guilty of concealing material fact from this Hon'ble Court. Details of chequred history of litigation is reproduced as under:- 1. Appeal No. 94/2001, M/s Nagori Industries v. Ganganagar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Limited and Ors. which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Appeals), Jodhpur vide order dated 15.1.2002. 2. Revision No. 3 (32)/2002, M/s Nagori Industries v. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur which was decided by learned Cooperative Minister vide order dated 2.7.2002. 3. Arbitration Case No. 4/2007-08, Ajay Kumar v. Ganganagar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Limited , which was decided by learned Arbitrator-cum-Secretary, Ganganagar Zila Prathmik Bhumi Vikas Bank Limited vide order dated 22.1.2008. 4. Civil Writ Petition No. 3589/2008, Ajay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , which was decided by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.12.2009. 5. S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 27/2010, Ajay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. which is pending before Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. 6. Appeal No. 51/2008, which was decided by the Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 23.7.2010. 7. Appeal No. 39/2010 pending in the Court of learned Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur. 8. Revision No. 38/2007 pending in the Court of learned Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur." But, in the writ petition, there is no disclosure of the above litigations. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of misleading this Court. 7. Appeal No. 39/2010 pending in the Court of learned Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur. 8. Revision No. 38/2007 pending in the Court of learned Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur." But, in the writ petition, there is no disclosure of the above litigations. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of misleading this Court. On this ground also the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of above, there is no substance in this writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******