Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1501 (PNJ)

Pipal Singh v. State of Haryana

2003-10-31

JASBIR SINGH, V.K.BALI

body2003
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - Pipal Singh and five others, through present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash notification (Annexure P-1) dated 10.4.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as also declaration (Annexure P-4) dated 30.6.2003 issued under Section 6 of the Act. 2. Brief facts, as projected in the present petition, reveal that the respondents issued notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the land of the petitioners and others for digging of "Rangoi Channel", admittedly a public purpose. It is the case of the petitioners that on 22.4.2003, they filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act making a grievance that the notification suffers from numerous infirmities and illegalities as also is against the public policy. Before, declaration under Section 6 of the Act could be issued, the petitioners herein filed Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 7725 of 2003, challenging notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 10.4.2003, which was dismissed by this Court on 19.5.2003 by holding that the same was pre-mature as, concededly, notification under Section 6 of the Act had not been issued so far. On 30.6.2003, respondents issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act and it is the case of the petitioners that the same was done without first deciding the objections filed by them under Section 5-A of the Act. Be at motion stage or now after notice has been issued to the respondents and written statement has been filed, counsel representing the petitioners only urged that no declaration under Section 6 of the Act could have been issued without first deciding objections under Section 5-A of the Act. When the matter came up for motion hearing on 11.7.2003, we passed the following order :- "On the instructions given to him by Sukhwinder Singh, the fifth petitioner herein, who is present in Court, and we may mention that pleadings are also likewise, learned counsel states that objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Annexure P-2, dated 22.4.2003 that were filed by the petitioners, were not decided at all. Notice of motion for 6.10.2003. Stay dispossession, subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs. Notice of motion for 6.10.2003. Stay dispossession, subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the Registrary of this Court, which, if the assertion made by the petitioners is found to be correct, shall be returned to them, failing which, said amount shall be imposed upon the petitioners by way of costs. Let the amount aforesaid be deposited within two weeks. At this stage, Mr. Jain states that the petitioners shall be able to deposit the amount of Rs. 20,000/- by 15.7.2003. There shall be stay of dispossession upto 14.7.2003 without depositing the amount aforesaid but same shall continue beyond 14.7.2003 only if the money is deposited. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents along with copy of the summons. Copy of order be given dasti." 3. On the adjourned date, i.e., 6.10.2003, when written statement had already been filed, the Court passed the following order :- "This order will be read in continuation of our order dated July 11, 2003. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein a positive averment has been made that the petitioners have filed no objection under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If the stand of respondents is correct, surely, objections Annexure P2, would be a made up affair. With a view to give a positive finding on the pleadings of the parties taking diametrically opposite stands, we order that the records of the matter be put up for perusal of the Court on the next date of hearing. The records of Land Acquisition Collector be also sent for perusal of the Court on the next date of hearing. The petitioners are also permitted to file replication or any other documents/pleadings that they want. List again on 14.10.2003." 4. Pursuant to the order dated 6.10.2003, the respondents have produced the records. The same demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioners did not file any objections whatsoever. This we are concluding for the fact that whatever objections had been filed the under Section 5-A of the Act, are available on the records of the case. However, insofar as, the petitioners are concerned, no objections said to have been filed by them under Section 5-A of the Act are available on the records. This we are concluding for the fact that whatever objections had been filed the under Section 5-A of the Act, are available on the records of the case. However, insofar as, the petitioners are concerned, no objections said to have been filed by them under Section 5-A of the Act are available on the records. There is nothing on the record to doubt the averments made in the written statement that the petitioners had not filed any objection nor there is anything available from which it can be concluded that the respondents might have intentionally destroyed the objections said to have been filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. No case of bias, ill-will or mala fide has been made out. We may, however, mention that Civil Misc. No. 23175 of 2003 has been filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record the complaint against the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa wherein, after making a mention of the writ petition and the grounds taken in the writ petition pertaining to objections under Section 5-A of the Act and contents of the written statement denying the said facts, it has further been pleaded that the petitioners have filed a complaint against the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa, to the Honble Governor, Haryana, Honble Chief Minister, Haryana and the President of District Bar Association, Sirsa, stating therein that the plea taken by the respondents is totally false and mala fide. A copy of the complaint dated 30.8.2003 has also been annexed with the said application. Prayer of the petitioners is to permit letters/complaints to be brought on record of the case. The complaints are stated to be dated 30.7.2003, the matter, as mentioned above, had come up for motion hearing on 11.7.2003 whereas, the writ petition, it appears from the records of the case, was filed on 9.7.2003. It is mentioned in one of the complaints, Annexure A-1, that objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed on 22.4.2003 in the Court of D.R.O.-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa but the petitioners were not given any receipt inspite of repeated visits to the office. In the ultimate analysis, it has been prayed in the application/complainant aforesaid that the matter be got investigated and the file pertaining to the objections be recovered. In the ultimate analysis, it has been prayed in the application/complainant aforesaid that the matter be got investigated and the file pertaining to the objections be recovered. If the petitioners had, indeed, filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 22.4.2003 and were not issued any receipt despite their visiting the concerned office on number of occasions, why a mention of the same was not made in the writ petition that was filed on 9.7.2003, is rather strange. We are of the view that in case, the petitioners were not issued receipt and had visited the concerned office on number of occasions to obtain a receipt, a mention of the same ought to have been made in the writ petition itself. Further, even in the complaint, Annexure A-1, it has not been mentioned as to who was inimically disposed towards the petitioners, who might have received the objections and still have some grouse against the petitioners to destroy the same. These complaints dated 30.7.20003, which came into being after the respondents had filed reply in this case, appear to have been manufactured simply with a view to prop up the petitioners stand which is otherwise incorrect, false and totally hollow in seeking quashing of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Same is our view insofar as objections under Section 5-A of the Act are concerned. The same have clearly been manufactured with a view to seek favourable orders from this Court as also for getting away with costs of Rs. 20,000/- regarding which, order was passed at the motion stage itself on 11.7.2003. 5. Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same. 6. Before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that in number of cases pertaining to challenge to acquisition proceedings, a ground is taken with regard to non-hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The experience shows us that in substantial number of cases, after written statement is filed or records are seen, it is found to be otherwise. The experience shows us that in substantial number of cases, after written statement is filed or records are seen, it is found to be otherwise. Keeping that experience in view, we, normally, while issuing notice of motion, pass an order of the kind that was passed in the present case, asking the petitioners to deposit a certain amount so that in case the averments pertaining to non-hearing of the objections under Section 5-A are found to be incorrect, such costs, which already stand deposited, are paid to the respondents. Surely, at the motion stage when written statement has not been filed, there remains hardly any choice for the Court but for to issue notice of motion whenever there may be positive pleadings that objections under Section 5-A had not been heard. 7. A Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (V.K. Bali, J.) was a member, in Nathu Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 16496 of 2001, which judgment lateron has been followed in number of cases, has held that every citizen has a right to approach all Courts in this country and it is the duty of the Court to redress the grievances of the citizens. But, surely, if a citizen may project his case based upon total falsehood and may intentionally indulge into vexations litigation, and the Court, after examining the whole issue, returns such a finding, costs have to be imposed upon such citizen, as otherwise, already over-following dockets of the Courts at every stage, would become impossible to handle. 8. Inasmuch as, in our view, in this case the petitioners have indulged in manufacturing the records with a view to prop up their case on totally false grounds, this petition deserves to be dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 20,000/-, which in view of our order dated 11.7.2003 should be paid to the respondents. So ordered. Petition dismissed.