JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 9.12.09 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Gr. III, Government of Rajasthan, refusing to allot the land applied for by the petitioner on the ground that the category of the land being gair mumkin talab, it cannot be allotted keeping in view a Bench decision of this court in Abdul Rahman's case. That apart, the communication dated 5.7.13, whereby District Collector, Pratapgarh has informed the Joint Secretary (M), Government of Rajasthan, that the land in question which is categorised as gair mumkin talab, cannot be allotted, keeping in view the decision of this court in Abdul Rahman's case, is also impugned in the present writ petition. 2. In response to the show cause notice issued, a reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents raising a preliminary objection that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and has concealed material facts and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the land in question was rejected vide order dated 9.12.09 and aggrieved thereby, a writ petition bearing No. 9864/10 preferred by the petitioner, has already been dismissed by this court vide order dated 27.10.10. The certified copies of the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner and the order dated 27.10.10 passed by a coordinate Bench of this court dismissing the said writ petition after consideration on merits, are placed on record as Annexure R/1 and R/2 respectively. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a bare perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner had questioned the legality of the order dated 9.12.09 passed by the State Government, rejecting its claim for allotment of the land in question. Drawing the attention of the court to the order dated 27.10.10, passed by a coordinate Bench of this court, learned counsel submitted that the writ petition was dismissed by the court taking into consideration a Bench decision of this court in the matter of Abdul Rahman v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2004 (4) WLC 435. Drawing the attention of the court to the order dated 27.10.10, passed by a coordinate Bench of this court, learned counsel submitted that the writ petition was dismissed by the court taking into consideration a Bench decision of this court in the matter of Abdul Rahman v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2004 (4) WLC 435. Learned counsel submitted that while dismissing the writ petition, taking into consideration the factum of the construction having been raised by the petitioner over the land in question without there being allotment in its favour, the court has specifically observed that the conduct of the petitioner in raising construction without allotment of the land, is all the more a good reason for rejecting the petition. Learned counsel submitted that while questioning the legality of the order dated 9.12.09, the petitioner has deliberately concealed the factum of earlier writ petition questioning the legality of the said order being dismissed by this court and thus, the conduct of the petitioner disentitles it from invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court and the writ petition preferred deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Learned counsel would submit that the order dated 9.12.09 has attained finality and the communication dated 5.7.13 sent by the District Collector, Paragraph informing the Joint Secretary (M), regarding the factual position not determining the claim of the petitioner afresh, does not give rise to any fresh cause of action and thus, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner while concealing the earlier concluded litigation between the parties, is gross misuse of process of this court. 4. On being asked by the court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has come to know about the earlier litigation between the parties only by way of reply to the petition. Learned counsel would submit that in the present writ petition, apart from the order dated 9.12.09, the petitioner has also questioned legality of order dated 5.7.13 of the District Collector, Pratapgarh and therefore, there being fresh cause of action, it cannot be said that the petitioner has misused the process of the court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, the earlier writ petition being No. 9864/10 was preferred by the petitioner inter alia questioning the legality of order dated 9.12.09 passed by the State Government, rejecting its claim for the allotment of the land in question. The prayer made in the said writ petition reads as under:- "Prayer: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and: i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, letter dated 09.12.2009 (Annex.15) and further the letter dated 21.07.2010 (Annex.17) and 30.08.2010 (Annex.18) issued by the District Collector, Pratapgarh may kindly be quashed and set aside and accordingly respondents may kindly be directed to initiate the proceedings of allotment of disputed piece of land as claimed by the petitioner-Society and accordingly the same may kindly be allotted to the petitioner-Society. ii. Respondents may kindly be directed to compensate the petitioner-Society in case of demolishing or damaging the constructed area of the petitioner-Society during the pendency of the petition. iii. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner." (emphasis added) 7. The writ petition preferred as aforesaid was dismissed by this court in light of Bench decision of this court in Abdul Rahman's case (supra) observing that the State Government has committed no wrong while rejecting the petitioner's request for allotment of land which is part of a pond. Taking into consideration the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner has already raised construction over the land in question, the court observed : "The fact so stated is quite strange. The conduct of the petitioner in raising construction without allotment of land is all the more a good reason to reject the petition for writ." 8. Suffice it to say that the petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the court after consideration on merits. It is not disputed before this court that order dated 27.10.10 passed by this court, upholding the order dated 9.12.09 issued by the State Government, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the land has attained finality. 9. Suffice it to say that the petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the court after consideration on merits. It is not disputed before this court that order dated 27.10.10 passed by this court, upholding the order dated 9.12.09 issued by the State Government, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the land has attained finality. 9. Strangely enough, while questioning the legality of order dated 9.12.09 all over again by way of present writ petition, what to say about the disclosure about fate of earlier litigation, the petitioner has made no reference of the earlier litigation between the parties. To the contrary, in para No. 13 of the petition, the petitioner has stated blatant lie on oath in the following terms: "13. That petitioner has not filed any other identical writ petition before this Hon'ble Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court of India except for the petition, details of which have been mentioned supra." 10. That apart, in the note appended at the bottom of the petition, it is stated that: "No such writ petition has previously been filed before this Hon'ble Court". 11. In view of the factual position emerging from the record, the record of Writ Petition No. 9864/10 was requisitioned by this court. A perusal of the record reveals that earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner herein, was also supported by an affidavit of Mr. Ishwar Lal s/o Shri Tulsi Ram, the same person who has filed present writ petition before this court. In this view of the matter, the deponent Ishwar Lal has not only mislead this court by suppressing the material facts rather, has indulged in stating blatant lie on oath and therefore, his conduct deserves to be taken seriously and dealt with sternly by this court. 12. Coming to the communication dated 5.7.13 which is referred to in the writ petition as an order alleged to have been passed by the District Collector, it is to be noticed that vide said communication, the District Collector has only apprised the Joint Secretary (M) regarding the factual position of the land in question being not available for allotment and it in no manner decides the claim of the petitioner for allotment afresh. In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the petition filed is based on fresh cause of action is absolutely misconceived. 13. In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the petition filed is based on fresh cause of action is absolutely misconceived. 13. The extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary and the person approaching the court invoking such jurisdiction of the court must come with the clean hands. In the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner while suppressing the material facts and indulging in stating blatant lie on oath, has abused the process of the court and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 14. In the result, the petition is dismissed with exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 30,000/-. The costs shall be paid by Mr. Ishwar Lal, the President of the petitioner-Society personally to the respondents, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.