Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 635 (HP)

Yashwant Singh v. State of H. P.

2017-06-02

SANJAY KAROL, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. In the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, under section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, he was found to be an encroacher and accordingly ordered to be evicted from the land measuring 0-3 marlas and has filed this writ petition for quashing the orders so passed. 2. However, at the same time, it is averred that the petitioner has already removed the encroachment and at the same time has also deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- as costs imposed upon him. 3. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing reply wherein it is stated that not only have the three revenue courts successively confirmed the encroachment, but even the petitioner himself has admitted this fact before the various authorities and has also at the same time deposited the compensation and, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. The first question that lurks in our mind and what we otherwise find to be intriguing is the possible reason for filing such a petition because if the petitioner has removed the encroachment and at the same time deposited the compensation together with the costs then why would he file the instant writ petition, that too, for the following relief: “That the impugned orders annexure P-1 dated 5.2.2014 passed by AC 1st Grade, Barsar, Annexure P-2 dated 9.1.2015 passed by Collector, Sub Division, Barsar and Annexure P-3 dated 9.9.2016 passed by learned Divisional Commission may kindly be quashed and set aside. In the alternative, after setting aside annexure P-3 to the extent of holding revision petition of the petitioner infructuous and order of dismissal of the same, may kindly be set aside and matter my kindly be remanded to the learned Divisional Commissioner for decision afresh in accordance with.” 6. Notably while filing the writ petition, the petitioner had also moved an application for interim orders being CMP No. 9742 of 2016 wherein a specific prayer was made that the impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 5.2.2014 passed by AC 1st Grade, Barsar, Annexure P-2 dated 9.1.2015 passed by Collector, Sub Division, Barsar and Annexure P-3 dated 9.9.2016 passed by learned Divisional Commissioner be stayed. 7. 7. However, during the course of hearing, the petitioner through his counsel stated at the Bar that in compliance to the orders made by the authorities, he had already removed the encroachment and even deposited the compensation and prayed that the orders in other proceedings may not be passed against him. This prayer appeared to be innocuous and was granted and the application was disposed of vide order dated 5.12.2016, which reads thus: “Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that in compliance to the orders made by the authorities, the petitioner has removed the encroachment and deposited the fine and prayed that orders in other proceedings may not be passed against him. Prayer granted. The application is disposed of.” 8. It is on the grant of interim order that the cat came out of the bag and it is then that the real purpose and intent of the petitioner in filing the writ petition came to fore. 9. It was revealed in the application filed by Ashok Kumar for impleading as a party that the petitioner in fact had contested the election to the post of Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Sour with the aforesaid Ashok Kumar wherein the petitioner came to be elected. This election was successfully challenged by Ashok Kumar and the election of the petitioner was set aside by the competent authority on the ground that petitioner had encroached upon the Government land and the matter was now pending before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Hamirpur. The petitioner armed with the aforesaid order dated 12.5.2016 presented the same before the Appellate Authority and on the basis of the aforesaid order kept the same pending till further orders were passed by this Court. 10. Thus, it is established on record that the purpose of filing of this petition is neither genuine nor bona fide and has been filed only to get over the disqualification already incurred by the petitioner to contest the election to the post of Pradhan as being an encroacher over the Government land. 11. It is settled law that one has to approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power, writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. 11. It is settled law that one has to approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power, writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material facts or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the application on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case. 12. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law Courts, it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the Court, when a Court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take the consequences that follow on account of its own making. 13. The Court proceedings are not a game of chess. At no cost can the stream of justice be permitted to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. The writ Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction exercises equitable jurisdiction. The estoppel stems from equitable doctrine and it requires that he who seeks equity must do equity. Not only this, a person who seeks equity, must act in a fair and equitable manner. The equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in case of a person who himself has acted unfairly. Even compassion cannot be shown in such cases. The compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of justice in a case where an individuals has tried to acquire any right by unscrupulous or forcible methods. 14. Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice. The legal maxim “Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem”, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. 15. The legal maxim “Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem”, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. 15. The law on the subject is well settled and on the basis of various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme court, the following principles can conveniently be culled out: “1. A writ remedy is an equitable one. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. Litigant before the Writ Court must come with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. He should disclose all facts without suppressing anything. Litigant cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back)/conceal other facts. 3. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or mis representation which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 4. If litigant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly or states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. 5. Such a litigant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 6. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice. 7. The litigation in the Court of law is not a game of chess. The Court is bound to see the conduct of party who is invoking such jurisdiction.” 16. What is more surprising if not shocking is that the petitioner would still rely upon the salutary principles that it is more than settled that justice should not only be done, but it manifestly be seen to be done. He would argue that the revenue authorities have found grave illegality and irregularity in the revenue records and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the same. He would argue that the revenue authorities have found grave illegality and irregularity in the revenue records and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the same. That apart, he would further contend that the petitioner himself had gifted land in favour of the Government of H.P. which is now shown as “Sareaam Rasta”. 17. In support of such contention, the petitioner has taken us to one of the reports sent by the Settlement Officer to the Principal Secretary-cum-FC (Revenue) wherein it is pointed out that there are various anomalies in these revenue records. 18. In addition to that the petitioner would back upon the representation Annexure P-7 made by villagers to the Hon’ble Revenue Minister alongwith some report prepared by a Patwari to claim that 90% of the numbers allotted during settlement are wrong and representation to this effect already stands submitted. 19. We really fail to understand as to how the aforesaid submissions are in any way relevant for the determination of present lis. The petitioner had nowhere disputed the extent, area or even the place of his encroachment and simply in order to get over the bar of contesting the election to the post of Pradhan had immediately surrendered the encroached land and deposited the compensation alongwith costs. 20. At no stage did the petitioner entertain any doubt or misapprehension or misconception of the land over which his encroachment existed. In fact, he admitted not only before the revenue authority but even before this Court that he had encroached over the Government land but had thereafter surrendered the same and had also paid the compensation and the costs. Now, therefore, it does not lie in his mouth to say that because of discrepancies and various shortcomings in the settlement operation, he was not aware of the encroachment. 21. As regards the contention of the petitioner that he has donated land to the Government; the same has no concern or connection with the adjudication of the instant petition and does not otherwise carry his case any further. 22. 21. As regards the contention of the petitioner that he has donated land to the Government; the same has no concern or connection with the adjudication of the instant petition and does not otherwise carry his case any further. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and are of the firm view that the petitioner has abused the process of the Court by filing the instant petition with an oblique motive simply in order to get over the disqualification prescribed under the Panchayati Raj Act which barred the petitioner from contesting the election to the post of Pradhan in case he was found to be an encroacher and, therefore, is liable to be burdened with costs. 23. It is more than settled that Courts have to filter out such petitions and dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive and illegal designs do not have the approval of the Courts. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the H.P. High Court Advocates’ Welfare Association within a period of four weeks. CMP No. 1027 of 2017 25. In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, the present application has become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous.