Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.
1. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the construction of a water course through kila Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16 and 25 of Square No. 21 of Chak No. 57 MP in Tehsil Sadulpur, District Sri Ganganagar. It may be pointed out that kila Nos. 5 and 6 referred to above belong to Bhajan Lal, while kila No. 15,16 and 25 belong to Surajbhan. So far as Bhajanlal is concerned, the Revenue Appellate Authority has pointedly observed that he had given his consent to the construction of the water course in dispute.
2. The original record of the Irrigation Department was produced before me by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. It appears from a perusal of the 'Rajinama statement' that Bhajanlal had expressed his consent to the construction of the water course and put his thumb mark in the 'Rajinama' in token of his consent. Besides that, there is a separate statement of Bhajanlal recorded, in which he has specifically stated that he bad no objection to the construction of a new water course through Kila Nos. 5,6,15,16, and 25. In these circumstances Bhajan Lal, having given his consent to the construction of water course, is estopped from raising a dispute in respect thereof. The Revenue Appellate Authority rightly relied upon his consent.
3. As regards Surajbhan, it appears that although his name has been mentioned as petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition, but he has neither signed the writ petition, nor he has signed the affidavit in support there of nor he has signed the vakalatnama filed along with the writ petition. In the entire proceedings in this Court in respect of the writ petition or stay application, Surajbhan had not appeared and has not signed. There is nothing on the record to show that writ petition was filed on his behalf with his consent. Merely addition of the name of Surajbhan Without any authority cannot make him a petitioner in the writ petition. Atleast there should have been a Vakalatnama signed by Surajbhan in favour of the learned counsel who signed the writ petition. In this view of the matter, Surajbhan cannot be held to be a petitioner in the present proceedings, there being no competent writ petition on his behalf. The writ petition can only be considered to be maintainble on behalf of Bhajanlal.
4. I have already observed above that Bhajanlal had given his consent to the construction of the water course and it appears that Surajbhan's name was added in the writ petition merely in order to over come the the difficulty arising from the consent of Bhajanlal. It may also be observed that Bhajanlal failed to state in the writ petition or explain the fact of his consent to the costruction of water course, given before the Irrigation authorities. It appears that Bhajanlal has not come forward with clean hands as he knowingly and consciously omitted to mention the fact of his consent to the construction of the water csurse and he failed to submit any explanation for his conduct in this respect.
5. In these circumstances, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with costs. The order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority should now be implemented without any delay.