Duty of the litigant to disclose all relevant facts when invoking the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 6.8.2012 (Annex.7) passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sriganganagar with further prayer that departmental appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 may kindly be dismissed and respondents authorities may be directed to provide the irrigation facilities to the petitioner as per earlier arrangement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner as well as one K.C. Sharma husband of respondent No. 4 was having agricultural land at chuk 17 BB, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar in Murabba Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 so also various properties at Sriganganagar. In the year 1997, father of the petitioner late Shri Gouri Shankar Sharma executed a Will in his favour and the said Will was submitted before the District Collector, Sriganganagar and information was also given to the petitioner as well as to Shri K.C. Sharma with regard to execution of the said Will in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, father of the petitioner died on 28.6.2009 at the age of 94 years, therefore, the Will executed in the year 1997 was not operative till his death but petitioner remained in cultivatory possession of the land in question and having all the irrigation facilities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was preferred before the respondent No. 3 by the respondent No. 4 with the contention that she has been gifted the land in question by late Shri Gouri Shankar Sharma by way of gift deed on 21.8.2007, therefore, she became owner of the land in question. Hence, it is prayed that water slips may be issued in her name. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 3 and submitted reply to the application and submitted that a civil suit for cancellation of the gift deed has already been filed by the petitioner in the competent civil Court in which ad interim injunction order has been passed by the trial Court as such the effect of the order passed by the civil Court is not in existence and so far as the rights of the respondent No. 4 on the basis of the gift deed are yet to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court.

4. The respondent No. 3 sent for report from the concerned Patwari and Patwari after taking statement of agriculturists gave report that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question from last more than 12 to 13 years.

5. The respondent No. 3 rejected the application filed by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 5.7.2012 in which it is observed that the petitioner is in cultivatory possession of the land in question, therefore, passed an order to maintain the existing arrangement.

6. The respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 but the appellate Court allowed the said appeal vide impugned order dated 6.8.2012.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned is patently illegal because it has been passed without considering the order passed by the respondent No. 2, who is respondent No. 3 and without even considering the report submitted by the Patwari and Assistant Engineer and, therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a standing order was also issued by the Superintending Engineer, which is placed on record as Annexure-4 whereby it is observed that in the event of pendency of any criminal case with regard to title of the land, the existing arrangement shall not be disturbed but in this case vide impugned order, the appellate authority disturbed the existing arrangement of the water supply which is totally illegal.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that existing arrangement of water supply cannot be disturbed for the simple reason that the petitioner is in cultivatory possession of the land in question therefore, the writ petition may be allowed and the order passed in appeal may be quashed.

9. Per contra, learned couns