10. The conduct of appellant No.1 is also requires to be seen while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Evidently, when the initial notice was given to him, he claimed that the property was gifted to him by his wife and thereafter the wife unsuccessfully fought civil litigation against the Government upto Second Appeal. The wife of appellant No.1 had even taken a plea of adverse possession against the Government, which was rejected by all the three Courts. The claim of the 1st appellant was thereafter separately enquired into by giving separate notice to him and the detailed orders passed by the primary, appellate and revisional authorities clearly show that the 1st appellant has fully utilized all the Forums and opportunities under the Act, but on merits his case was rejected. Moreover, in order to get over the aforesaid adverse orders, the 1st appellant himself sought for regularization of his possession, which was rejected by the Government, keeping in view the long round litigation in which the appellants had involved the Government. The present writ petition has also been pending for as much as 9 years from 2003 to 2012 and the appellants have stalled eviction. After due examination, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. In this appeal also though we have noticed all these facts and have re-examined the matter, we are fully satisfied with the orders of the primary, appellate and revisional authorities under the Act as well as the order of the learned Single Judge that they do not suffer from any infirmity and no interference with the same is required under the facts and circumstances of the case.
