Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 722 (PNJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

2011-03-04

JASBIR SINGH, RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral): - Petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 23.8.2007, proposing to acquire a vast tract of land, for a public purpose, namely, for development of residential and commercial sector 9, Safidon as per draft development plan of that city. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 21.8.2008, finally ordering acquisition of the above said land. 2. In this writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners are the owners of 18 kanal 12 marla of land falling in Rectangle No.6 khasra No.11/2, 20, 21/2 and Rectangle No.7 khasra No.16. It is further stated that the petitioners had constructed Dal Mill and Rice Sheller, however, the buildings was being used as godowns and one Dharam Kanta has also been installed in the land mentioned above. It is specific grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition and also at the time of arguments when notice of motion was issued that as per Government Policy, buildings raised by many other land owners were kept out of acquisition whereas despite objections raised, under Section 5-A of the Act, the relief was not granted to the petitioners in a very arbitrary manner. On 9.11.2010, following averment made by counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court:- “It is case of the petitioners that by not releasing their constructed godown, discrimination has been done with them, whereas said relief was granted to many others whose particulars have been given in paragraph No.25 of the writ petition.” 3. It is further grievance of the petitioners that even vacant land of others has been kept out of acquisition. In response to notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the written statement filed reads thus:- “2. That the contents of para No.2 of the Civil Writ Petition are correct to this extent that the land in Rect. No.7, Killa No.16 (8-14) has been acquired by the State and rest of the Killa numbers has not been acquired. It is correct that Shiv Kumar petitioner filed objection u/s 5A of the Act and as per inspection at the spot the land was found vacant. No.7, Killa No.16 (8-14) has been acquired by the State and rest of the Killa numbers has not been acquired. It is correct that Shiv Kumar petitioner filed objection u/s 5A of the Act and as per inspection at the spot the land was found vacant. The Land Acquisition Collector recommended for acquisition of the land as the same was lying vacant at the spot. The petitioners are not entitled to approach the Hon’ble Court by way of filing the writ petition as the acquisition proceedings have been legally carried out. 3. That the contents of para No.3 of the Civil Writ Petition are correct to this extent that the petitioners are co-sharer in the land mentioned above and the petitioner No.1 is owner of 1/24 shares and petitioner No.2 is owner of 1/4 shares. The land was lying vacant at the spot. As per report u/s 5A of the Act, the Killa No.7//16 was vacant and was fit to be acquired.” 4. In the reply filed, it is specifically stated that after taking note of the objections filed by the petitioner, land falling in khasra No.6//11/2, 20, 21/2 total measuring 9 kanal 18 marla was left out of acquisition. So far as land falling in khasra No.7//16 (8-14) is concerned, it was lying vacant at the spot. Award in this case was passed on 19.8.2010. Admittedly, this writ petition has been field after passing of that award. 5. After hearing arguments, and taking note of the written statement, we are convinced that the petitioners have made an attempt to conceal the true facts. Notification (P2) does not pertain to the land of the petitioner. Vide that notification, land was acquired to develop residential and commercial Sector 9 Safidon, whereas land of the petitioner was acquired by issuing an another notification under Section 4 of the Act for development of residential and commercial sector 7 Safidon. Though prayer has been made to quash that notification, however, it is not placed on record. Be that as it may, the petitioners have made a material concealment of fact that their land measuring 9 kanal 18 marla was kept out of acquisition after hearing their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. It was so stated in the written statement, to which, no replication was filed by the petitioners to controvert the averments made therein. 6. It was so stated in the written statement, to which, no replication was filed by the petitioners to controvert the averments made therein. 6. It is also apparent from the records that petitioner No.2 Shiv Kumar son of Jyoti Parsad has also filed an another writ petition i.e. CWP No.19107 of 2010, claiming the same relief as claimed in this case. 7. A litigant who tried to make an attempt to over reach the Court by concealing material fact is not entitled to get any relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.20963 of 2010 titled as Rajender and others versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.1.2011, dealing with the similar situation, where the petitioners had concealed the material facts, has observed as under:- “From the centuries the Indian Society always depicted two basic values of human life i.e. truth and non-violence. Persons like Mahatma Gandhi, Swami Vivekanand, Gautam Budha etc. always guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constitute an integral part of justice – delivery system without which justice can not be done. In preindependence era, the people feel proud to tell truth in the Courts irrespective of the consequences which they may have to face. But, in the post independence period drastic changes can be seen in our value system. Today, materialism has overshadowed our old values and everyone is concerned with his personal gain. People have become so greedy that they do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood for their personal gain. People involved in the litigations conceals truth from the Court and take the shelter of misrepresentation and suppression of real facts to mislead the Court to get an order passed in their favour. What treatment should be given to such like litigants, an answer was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114, in which, it was held as under:- “A party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. A person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. A person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.” 9. In the case of Dalip Singh (Supra), the Court referred the observations made by the Supreme Court in, Prestige Lights Ltd. V. SBI, (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 449, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:- “In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” 10. Besides as above, as this writ petition has been filed after passing of an award, it cannot be entertained in view of ratio of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. 11. Besides as above, as this writ petition has been filed after passing of an award, it cannot be entertained in view of ratio of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. 11. As per facts mentioned above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be deposited with the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, UT, Chandigarh within one month from today, failing which, the Secretary may initiate the proceedings to recover that amount. -----------0.K.B.0------------