The suppression of material documents, the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, and the lack of bona fides in a claim can disentitle a petitioner from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

G. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) STATE officers colossal negligence, indifference, bordering on apathy towards land reform legislations has resulted in filing of "no return" after pendency of more than three years of this writ petition. The Law Officer fairly and frankly expressed their helplessness, in filing the return, when concerned officers become "dumb and deaf" to the repeated requests to send instructions and record. This Court is not concerned with the "internal disorder "exhibited above" but feel handicapped in the absence of production of relevant record and even notification of delegation, if any. With the above tiny preface let me now narrate the case in traditional convention.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in these writ petition have challenged the order Annex. 1, in both the cases, passed by Tehsildar, Colonisation directing their eviction, imposing penalty and sentence of three months civil imprisonment under S. 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954. In both the cases the impugned orders state that the petitioners have committed trespass second time, after they were declared trespassers for this very land earlier.

( 3 ) THE petitioners in their writ petitions have said that they are only hired laboures and are not the cultivators of these lands.

( 4 ) IN both the writ petitions, Mr. I. J. Lodha, Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order Annex. 1 on the ground that the Tehsildar, Colonisation is not empowered to pass an order under S. 22 and the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation could have only passed the impugned order. It was argued that delegation has been made to the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation and, neither second delegation has been made nor can be made to the Tahsildar Colonisation. It was also pointed out that since the petitioners have been ordered to undergo civil imprisonment, the ordinary remedy of appeal if any, cannot be sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) DR. Bhandawat, learned Deputy Government Advocate has contested these; writ petitions. No reply has been filed controverting the facts. It was explained that although the writ petitions were filed in the year 1981 and the stay orders were obtained; in the year 1981 itself and time was taken for filing the reply, the State functionaries did not come to file the reply and instruct the Government Advocate in spite of repeated requests.

( 6 ) MR. Ashok Mathur, learned Addl. Advocate General also appeared to assist the Court, but he also expressed his helplessness in the matter of filing the reply or showing any notification of delegation to Tehsildar because the officers of the Government, in spite of repeated reminders and requests have not given instructions to file the reply.

( 7 ) BEFORE, I proceed to adjudicate the points raised before me, I must mention that these two cases are of agricultural land in Ganganagar District where irrigated lands reap extremely good crops and there is pressure for land allotments. The absence of return only puts a question mark on the bona fides of the concerned officers, but beyond that it is not for this Court to make any deductions.

( 8 ) IN all the two cases, the proceedings for removal of trespassers and encroachment have been taken at least for the second time, after the first order declaring the petitioners as trespassers has become final, as they have either not challenged the earlier order or if they have challenged, then the challenge was not successful. The record has been left all "high and dry" about it.

( 9 ) IN all fairness, it was expected from the petitioners that they should file the earlier order by which they were declared trespassers, so that this Court can have a correct and comprehensive study of the nature of the rights if any asserted by the petitioners and repelled by the authorities. In the absence of the earlier order, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate precisely what was the dispute raised and adju