Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1156 (MP)

Hameeda Qureshi v. Sunil Paleriya

2015-11-05

R.S.JHA

body2015
ORDER 1. This review application has been filed by the applicant seeking recall of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 disposed of on 10.7.2015. 2. Before this Court adverts to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to enumerate the facts leading to the filing of the present review application. 3. The respondent No.1 in this application for review participated in the auction proceedings conducted in the year 2008 which were held by the Punjab National Bank and the revenue authorities in respect of the land belonging to the husband of the present applicant, which had been hypothecated by him with the bank on account of the non-repayment of dues. The respondent No.1. in the present application was the sole bidder in the auction proceedings. However, as the auction proceedings were not finalized in favour of the respondent No.1, he filed a civil suit before the Court below praying for a declaration to the effect that he purchased the land in the auction proceedings and therefore, he be declared owner of the same. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.11.2010 by holding that simply because the respondent No.1 was the highest bidder, he did not acquire any right or title to the land in question. The matter travelled upto this Court in Second Appeal No.734/2012 which was also dismissed by judgment dated 4.2.2014. While the matter stood thus, the husband of the present applicant who was the original borrower died and therefore, the applicant applied for mutation of her name in the land in question on account of death of her husband and the said application was allowed on 16.6.2014. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant had stated that the amount borrowed from the bank had been returned and therefore, the property was discharged, pursuant to which, it was sold by the applicant to Prabhakar Baraskar Ajab Rao and others. 4. At this stage, the respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the revenue authorities alleging that the land had been wrongly mutated in the name of the applicant and had been deliberately sold inspite of the fact that it was the subject matter of the auction proceedings. 4. At this stage, the respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the revenue authorities alleging that the land had been wrongly mutated in the name of the applicant and had been deliberately sold inspite of the fact that it was the subject matter of the auction proceedings. The respondent No.1 thereafter filed an innocuous petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.10617/2015 stating that no action has been taken by the Collector Betul on the complaint of the petitioner/ respondent No.1 and therefore, he be directed to do so. On the basis of the innocuous pleadings and the prayer this Court had disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 10.7.2015 directing the Collector to look into the complaint of the respondent No.1 and deal with it expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of six months thereafter. This Court while doing so, specifically stated that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore, the authorities would be at liberty to take into consideration all facts and facets of the case and decide it. 5. The applicant has now filed the present application for review seeking recall of the direction issued in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 stating that the petition had been filed by the respondent no.1 suppressing several material facts. It is stated that in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 the respondent No.1 has suppressed the fact that his claim for being declared as owner of the land pursuant to the auction proceedings had already been rejected in the civil suit filed by him vide judgment dated 26.11.2010 and the order passed by the trial Court had been affirmed in Second Appeal No.734/2012 by judgment dated 4.2.2014. 6. It is further stated that the respondent No.1 also knew about the fact that the land had already been handed over to the applicant on account of the fact that the amount due to the bank had been repaid and the bank had issued a no objection certificate in that regard as this fact had clearly come up and had been taken note of by this Court in judgment dated 4.2.2014 passed in Second Appeal No.734/2012 while rejecting the second appeal filed by the respondent No.1. 7. 7. It is also asserted that the respondent No.1 was also aware of the fact that the revenue authorities were taking action on the complaint of the respondent No.1 dated 11.12.2014 as the matter had been directed by the Collector to be enquired into by the Naib Tahsildar Betul who had recorded the statements of the respondent No.1 and had thereafter forwarded a report to the Collector indicating that no case for conducting any further proceedings is made out vide his report dated 17.4.2015. 8. It is stated that all these facts had been suppressed by the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 for the purposes of obtaining a direction to the Collector for conducting an inquiry into the matter and therefore, the order dated 10.7.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 be reviewed and recalled and heavy cost be imposed upon the respondent No.1 for suppression of facts. 9. It is also informed that the respondent No.1 had also filed a similar petition, which was registered as Writ Petition No.10093/2015 seeking a direction against the Superintendent of Police Betul for registering an FIR, which was also disposed of vide order dated 6.7.2015 with a direction to the Superintendent of Police to register an FIR on the complaint of the respondent No.1 and thereafter to take action against the persons responsible. It is stated that the applicant had filed a review petition seeking recall of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10093/2015 which has been allowed vide order dated 24.9.2015 and this Court while recalling the order has imposed heavy cost of Rs.20,000/- upon the respondent No.1. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. per contra submits that he does not dispute the fact of taking part in the auction proceedings, of filing a suit which was dismissed, of filing a second appeal which was also dismissed and of filing a complaint before the Collector. He also does not dispute the fact that on his complaint, statements were recorded by the Tahsildar. He however, states that on the date when he filed the Writ Petition No.10617/2015, he had no knowledge about the fact that the Naib Tahsildar concerned had already forwarded his report dated 17.4.2015 to the Collector to the effect that there was no illegality in the proceedings and therefore, no inquiry is required to be conducted. He however, states that on the date when he filed the Writ Petition No.10617/2015, he had no knowledge about the fact that the Naib Tahsildar concerned had already forwarded his report dated 17.4.2015 to the Collector to the effect that there was no illegality in the proceedings and therefore, no inquiry is required to be conducted. He has also stated that he had no knowledge about the fact that the bank had issued a no objection certificate and released the land in favour of the applicant pursuant to which the applicant had sold the land. He states that the respondent No.1 had filed a complaint before the Tahsildar previously in which Tahsildar had passed an order on 2.12.2014 to the effect that the land in question was non-transferable and communication in that regard was also sent to the registration officer and it was in such circumstances that he had approached this Court for a direction to the Collector to conduct an inquiry. In his reply, the respondent No.1 also tendered a unconditional apology for any act or omission on his part. 11. The learned counsel for the applicant in his reply submits that the land in question had been transferred by the applicant after obtaining no objection certificate dated 17.4.2015 from the bank, prior to the passing of the order by the Tahsildar to the effect that the land was not transferable on 2.12.2014. It is stated that on coming to know about the passing of the subsequent order by the Tehsildar regarding non transferability, he moved an application for review which has been allowed by the Tahsildar on 8.7.2015 and the note to the effect that the property was not transferable has been withdrawn. After the correct facts were brought to the notice of the Tehsildar by the applicant. It is asserted that all these facts were well within the knowledge of the respondent No.1 but he deliberately suppressed the facts and obtained orders and therefore, the explanation given by the respondent No.1 should not be considered. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 13. From the narration of the aforesaid facts, it is clear and undisputed that the facts of dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent No.1 on 26.11.2010 as well as Second Appeal on 4.2.2014 were not stated by the respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition No.10617/2015 filed by him. 13. From the narration of the aforesaid facts, it is clear and undisputed that the facts of dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent No.1 on 26.11.2010 as well as Second Appeal on 4.2.2014 were not stated by the respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition No.10617/2015 filed by him. It is also apparent that the respondent No.1 had also suppressed the fact stated in Second Appeal No.734/2012 filed by the respondent No.1 to the effect that the land had been released to the applicant. 14. It is also apparent that the respondent No.1 also deliberately suppressed the fact that the revenue authorities had already acted upon the complaint filed by him before the Collector and pursuant to the complaint filed by him, his statement had been recorded by the Naib Tahsildar and the inquiry was in progress. The aforesaid suppression on the part of the respondent No.1 is clearly established. 15. From a perusal of the order passed in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 dated 10.7.2015 it is also apparent that this Court was constrained to dispose of the petition with a direction to the Collector Betul only in view of the fact that the respondent No.1 had stated that no action whatsoever being taken on his complaint, which fact was incorrect to the knowledge of the respondent No.1 as he had already got his statements recorded before the Tahsildar and the inquiry was being conducted pursuant to the complaint filed by him. At the same time, it is also clear that no final order on the inquiry pending before the Collector on the complaint of the respondent No.1 has been brought on record, though the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has specifically stated that the said inquiry has already been closed by the Collector in view of the report of the Naib Tahsidlar. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 dated 10.7.2015 deserves to be modified in the light of the aforesaid facts. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 dated 10.7.2015 deserves to be modified in the light of the aforesaid facts. It is therefore, directed that the order dated 10.7.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 shall stand modified to the extent that the direction issued by this Court to the Collector Betul would be subject to the fact that in case he has not finally decided the complaint filed by the respondent No.1, he would do so keeping in mind the fact of dismissal of the suit and the second appeal filed by the respondent No.1, the report of the Tahsildar dated 17.4.2015, the order dated 8.7.2015 passed by the Tahsildar withdrawing the order of the non-transferability of the land and all other facts. It is also clarified that the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.10617/2015 should not be interpreted to mean that the Collector is necessarily required to take any action against the applicant and in case the Collector finds on the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that no case is made out, he would be at liberty to close the matter, if he has not already done so. 17. Quite apart from the above, as the fact of suppression is apparent and established and as the orders passed by this Court were obtained without disclosing the several material facts, which amount to misuse and abuse of the process of law and looking to the fact that the applicant was required to file these proceedings for review and engage a counsel and incur expenses therein on account of the aforesaid suppression on the part of the respondent No.1. I am of the considered opinion that the respondent No.1. is liable to pay and is hereby directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid to the applicant and receipt thereof shall be filed by the respondent No.1 before the Registry of this Court within a month. 18. With the aforesaid direction, the review petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.