Delhi District Court
Sh. Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh vs Sh. Veer Singh on 28 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUNALI GUPTA, ADJ06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS No.: 20/17
CNR No. DLST010045012016
Unique I.D No. CS DJ/209027/16
In the matter of:
Sh. Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh
S/o Sh. Hansa Ram
R/o Village Aya Nagar,
New Delhi.
....... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Veer Singh
S/o Sh. Prem Raj
R/o Ghora Mohalla,
Village Aya Nagar,
New Delhi110047.
2. The Editor
'Jansatta'
New Delhi.
....... Defendants
Date of Institution : 25.08.2005
Date reserved for judgment : 17.03.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.03.2018
AND
CS No.: 44/17
CNR No. DLST010045012016
Unique I.D No. CS DJ/209011/16
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.1/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
In the matter of:
Sh. Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal
S/o Sh. Hansa Ram
R/o Village Aya Nagar,
New Delhi.
....... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Veer Singh
S/o Sh. Prem Raj
R/o Ghora Mohalla,
Village Aya Nagar,
New Delhi110047.
2. The Editor
'Jansatta'
New Delhi.
....... Defendants
Date of Institution : 28.10.2005
Date reserved for judgment : 17.03.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.03.2018
Both Suits for Recovery of Rs.25,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs
only).
J U D G M E N T:
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off the abovecaptioned
two Civil Suits filed by the plaintiff(s) seeking recovery of money on
account of defamation/loss of reputation and prestige due to the
false imputations made by defendant no.1 which were published in
the newspaper by defendant no.2.
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.2/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
2. Both the cases are being disposed off by a common judgment in as
much as the pleadings of the parties in both the cases are similar,
the defendants are same and the cause of action in either of them
is nearly identical. The plaintiffs in these cases are real brothers.
The plaintiff 'Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh' had instituted the suit on
25.08.2005 and the other plaintiff namely 'Rishi Pahlwan @ Rishi
Pal' had instituted the case on 28.10.2005.
3. The brief facts of the cases as culled out from the pleadings are
summarized as under:
3.1 It is stated in the plaint that plaintiffs are respectable persons of the
society having considerable movable and immovable properties in
the revenue estate of Village Aya Nagar, New Delhi. The defendant
no.1 who is also residing in Village Aya Nagar and having inimical
terms with the plaintiffs, in order to damage the reputation of the
plaintiffs, had called a press conference wherein he had made false
allegations against the plaintiffs that they had encroached upon the
government land, raised unauthorized constructions on land
belonging to Gaon Sabha and also sold the land in the shape of
plots to the plot holders illegally. On the basis of the said press
conference, the defendant no.2 in the Delhi edition of their
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.3/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
newspaper 'Jansatta' dated 14.07.2005, published a news item
under the heading "illegal construction over the gram sabha land
and illegal sale thereon". The publication of the said news item has
badly affected and tarnished the reputation of the plaintiffs among
their friends, relatives and residents of the area as they are under
the impression that the plaintiffs have encroached upon the
government land. Though in fact, the plaintiffs have neither
encroached upon the government land nor sold the government
land in the area of Village Aya Nagar to anyone.
3.2 It is further stated that in fact the defendant no.1 had encroached
upon the government land comprised in khasra no.1689, Village
Aya Nagar, New Delhi which was a land demarcated and
earmarked for constructing a government school. In order to justify
his act of encroachment on the government land and to desist the
plaintiffs from taking any action against him for his removal from the
government land, he made these false allegations against them.
3.3 The said news item published in the newspaper dated 14.07.2007,
was circulated throughout India due to which the plaintiffs have
suffered mental agony also. When the plaintiff Pinno Singh went to
Haryana for finalization of marital alliance of his daughter, due to
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.4/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
the said news item, the other side refused to have matrimonial
alliance with his daughter.
3.4 As regards defendant no.2, it is stated that being the Editor of the
newspaper, they were under obligation to make an inquiry about
the genuineness of the said news item before publishing the same
in the newspaper. However, they failed to make any inquiry as to
whether the plaintiff had encroached the government land. Merely
because someone has made a false allegation against the other in
a press conference and where the same is published in the
newspaper, the newspaper cannot be exempted from payment of
damages.
3.5 Notice dated 16.07.2005 was sent to defendant no.1 and notice
dated 18.07.2005 was sent to defendant no.2 which were duly
received by them but were not replied and thus, the facts
mentioned in the said notices were duly accepted and admitted by
the defendants. By way of the said notices, the defendants were
also asked to pay damages in the sum of Rs.25 lakhs but they
failed to pay the same. Hence, the present suit.
4. Separate written statements were filed by defendant no.1 and
defendant no.2 resisting the claim made by the plaintiff.
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.5/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
4.1 The case setforth by defendant no.1 is that there is no falsity in the
statement made by him at the press conference. The plaintiff has in
fact encroached upon the government land and has raised
construction on the premises himself as well as through his
customers. The plaintiff has carved out plots on government land
and has developed a colony under the name & style of 'Ishwar
Colony'. He can prove that in khasra no.815, 816, 806, 807, 839,
etc. of which the possession has been wrongly taken by the
plaintiff, is a government land and that he has developed a colony
over it. It is further stated that the plaintiff had himself filed a Writ
Petition before Hon'ble High Court bearing no. W.P.(C)10236/2005
in respect of the present land wherein he has admitted that he has
carved out plot and has raised the construction thereon and
developed the colony under the name & style of 'Ishwar Colony
PhaseV'. In the said writ petition he has asserted that he was not
given any showcause notice under The Land Reforms Act and as
such the authorities should not dispossess him from the said land
or demolish the structure raised thereon.
4.2 It is also stated that the press conference was called on behalf of
Aya Nagar Gram Vikas Samiti with a view to inform the public about
the various illegal activities of the plaintiff. The matter discussed in
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.6/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
the press conference was not false and was not intended to lower
the reputation of plaintiff but was only an attempt on part of the
defendant to inform the innocent public about the title of the land.
The averment that the defendant has encroached upon government
land comprised in Khasra no.1689 which was earmarked for
government school, has been absolutely denied. Regarding the
averment of issuance of legal notice dated 16.07.2005 to him by
the plaintiff, it has been submitted that the said notice was replied
by him vide reply dated 08.08.2005 wherein the plaintiff was
informed that the defendant was not liable to pay any amount as
alleged by him. Rest all the averments made in the plaint have
been denied and dismissal of suit has been sought.
4.3 Written statement has been filed by defendant no.2 taking the
preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable as no cause
of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff against defendant no.2.
4.4 On merits, it has been stated that as per the mechanism evolved in
terms of the decisions handed down by Hon'ble Press Council, a
person aggrieved by publication of any matter in a newspaper, is
entitled to send his version to the newspaper and the newspaper is
required to publish such version. Thus, on being allegedly
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.7/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
aggrieved by the said news item, it was for the plaintiff to address a
letter with his version to the Editor of the newspaper.
4.5 It has been stated that the newspaper is under no obligation to
conduct an inquiry before publishing any news item. The said news
item was the mere reporting of the press conference by Aya Nagar
Vikas Samiti and no editorial comment was made thereupon. It has
been denied that defendant no.2 did not make any effort to know
the truthfulness in the statements made by the defendant no.1. It is
stated that after receiving the press release from Aya Nagar Vikas
Samiti about the illegal sale and construction in the locality, a senior
reporter of the newspaper tried to get the version of the persons
against whom the allegations were made but they refused to give
their version. The reporter even tried to get the version of the
Patwari but even he refused to talk. In view of these facts and
circumstances, in the larger public interest, the newspaper had to
carry this story. Claim of the plaintiff on account of damages
against defendant no.2 has been strictly denied.
5. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments made
in the plaint and denying the contrary averments made in the
written statements filed by defendant no.1 and defendant no.2.
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.8/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
6. Upon completion of the pleading, on 19.08.2008 the following
issues were settled:
i. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? OPP
ii. Whether the Defendants have in any manner defamed the
Plaintiff as alleged in the plaint? OPP
iii. If the aforesaid issue is answered in favour of the Plaintiff,
whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages and if so, for
what amount? OPP
iv. Whether the publication of new items dated 14 th July, 2005
published in Jansatta defames the Plaintiff? OPP
v. Whether the allegations made by the Defendants against
the Plaintiff as true? OPD
vi. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief? OPP
vii. Relief.
7. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses in
each case. The witnesses examined in case titled as Pinno Singh
Vs. Veer Singh & Anr. are as under:
PW1 Sh. Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh - the plaintiff himself. In
lieu of his examinationinchief he has deposed by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A and additional affidavit Ex.PW1/A1, wherein he has
reiterated the case set forth in the plaint and has relied upon the
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.9/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
following documents:
i. Ex.PW1/1 is copy of newspaper "Jansatta", Delhi Edition.
ii. Ex.PW1/2 & 3 are notices dated 16.07.2005 & 18.07.2005.
iii. Ex.PW1/4 & 5 are the postal receipts.
iv. Ex.PW1/6 is the UPC receipt.
v. Ex.PW1/7 & 8 are the AD cards.
vi. Ex.PW1/9 (Colly) is the copy of khatonis issued by Tehsil
Mehrauli.
vii. Ex.PW1/10 (Colly) is the copy of Agreement to Sell, General
Power of Attorney along with ReceiptcumAgreement.
PW2 Sh. Sushil Kumar. In lieu of examinationinchief, PW2 has
also deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A wherein he has
deposed as per the case setforth in the plaint.
Both these witnesses were extensively crossexamined by Ld.
Defence counsel which I shall be appreciating during discussion on
issues.
7.1 The witnesses examined in case titled as 'Rishi Pahalwan Vs. Veer
Singh & Anr.' are as under:
PW1 Sh.Rishi Pehlwan the plaintiff himself. In lieu of his
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.10/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
examinationinchief he has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A,
wherein he has reiterated the case set forth in the plaint and has
relied upon the following documents:
i. Ex.PW1/1 (Colly) is the copy of khatonis issued by Tehsil
Mehrauli.
ii. Ex.PW1/2 is copy of newspaper "Jansatta", dated 14.07.2005,
Delhi Edition.
iii. Ex.PW1/3 & Ex.PW1/4 are notices dated 16.07.2005 &
18.07.2005.
iv. Ex.PW1/5 & Ex.PW1/6 are the postal receipts.
v. Ex.PW1/7 is the UPC receipt.
PW2 Sh. Anil Kumar - Witness from legal department Indian
Express Newspaper. He has produced the certified copy of
newspaper dated 14.07.2007 which is Ex.PW2/A.
8. Since the defendants are same in both the cases, they have led
common evidence for both the cases and examined two
witnesses. They are as under:
DW1 Sh. Beer Singh - defendant no.1 himself. In lieu of his
examinationinchief he has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A,
wherein he has reiterated the case set forth in the written statement
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.11/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and has relied upon the following documents:
i. Ex.DW1/1 is photocopy of certified copy of WP(C) No.10296/05
filed by the plaintiff Pinno Singh before Hon'ble High Court and
which is titled as 'Pinno Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.'.
ii. Ex.DW1/2 is copy of order dated 05.12.2005 passed by Hon'ble
Delhi High Court thereby dismissing the civil suit of the plaintiff
and also imposing cost of Rs.1 lakh on him.
iii. Ex.DW1/3 is copy of certified copy of order dated 08.08.2008.
iv. Ex.DW1/4 is the copy of order dated 03.02.2006 passed in Writ
Petition No.10296/2005 thereby dismissing the Writ Petition with
cost of Rs.25,000/.
v. Ex.DW1/5 is copy of order dated 13.03.2006 passed in Writ
Petition No.7374/2005 thereby dismissing the Writ Petition with
cost of Rs.25,000/.
vi. Ex.DW1/6 is communication dated 28.02.2007 received from
Office of DCP (South) pursuant to the RTI application filed by
the defendant. The information is as under:
Case registered against Pinnu @ Kinu, S/o Hansa,
S. FIR No. Date Under Section Police Station
No.
1. 179 12.06.1991 147/148/149/307/506/34 Mehrauli
IPC
2. 41 06.02.1994 48/451/323/34 IPC Mehrauli
3. 393 28.07.1996 506/34 IPC Mehrauli
4. 361 07.07.1996 308/323/447/506/34 Mehrauli
5. 783 08.11.2006 323/341/354/506/34 IPC Mehrauli
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.12/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
Case registered against Rishipal, S/o Hansa,
S. FIR No. Date Under Section Police Station
No.
1. 179 12.06.1991 147/148/149/307/506/34 Mehrauli
IPC
2. 41 06.02.1994 48/451/323/34 IPC Mehrauli
3. 393 28.07.1996 506/34 IPC Mehrauli
4. 361 07.07.1996 308/323/447/506/34 Mehrauli
5. 138/01 325/34 IPC Mehrauli
vii. Ex.DW1/7 is copy of FIR no.99/2008 P.S. Mehrauli registered
against the plaintiff Pinno Singh U/Sec.323/447/427/387 IPC on
the complaint of one Ram Chander on the allegation that the
plaintiff had threatened him of dire consequences in case he
fails to vacate his plot no.210, HBlock, Bandh Road, Aya
Nagar, Delhi and in a drunkard condition caused injuries to the
complainant Ram Chander.
viii.Ex.DW1/8 (Colly) are the post receipt, registered AD card and
copy of reply dated 08.08.2005 to the notice dated 16.07.2005
sent by the plaintiff.
DW2 Sh. Om Thanvi - the then Executive Editor of 'Jansatta'
newspaper (arrayed as defendant no.2). In lieu of his
examinationinchief he has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/B,
wherein he has reiterated the case set forth in the written
statement.
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.13/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
Thereafter, DE was closed on 15.02.2018 and the matter was
posted for final arguments.
9. Final arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel Sh. Deepanjan Dutta
for the plaintiffs, Ld. Counsel Sh. Shivinder Chopra for defendant
no.1 and Ld. Counsel Sh. Kunal Anand for defendant no.2 have
been heard and record has been carefully perused.
10. Discussion on Issues:
ISSUE No.1 : Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? OPP
ISSUE No.2 : Whether the Defendants have in any manner defamed
the Plaintiff as alleged in the plaint? OPP
ISSUE No.3 : If the aforesaid issue is answered in favour of the
Plaintiff, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages and if so, for
what amount? OPP
ISSUE No.4 : Whether the publication of new items dated 14 th July,
2005 published in Jansatta defames the Plaintiff? OPP
ISSUE No.5 : Whether the allegations made by the Defendants
against the Plaintiff as true? OPD
ISSUE No.6 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief? OPP
All the issues are taken up together in as much as these issues are
interconnected. A common discussion shall suffice and would address all
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.14/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
these issues.
10.1 Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff(s) has argued that the plaintiff is an
agriculturists holding very respectable positions in the village. He
also owns big chunks of land in the village. He has neither
encroached upon the government land nor carved out any plots
thereon and sold the government land to any individual. The
allegations levelled against him are absolutely false. The defendant
no.1 in a planned and conceived manner and in order to tarnish the
reputation of the plaintiff, has got published false content in the
newspaper of defendant no.2. This act of publication has
considerably lowered the image of plaintiff which he was holding in
the eyes of the villagers as well as his friends and relatives
(submission in either of the cases on behalf of the plaintiff are
similar).
10.2 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 has argued that
defendant no.1 had no illwill or malice of any sort against the
plaintiffs. The press conference was held so as to inform the
general public about the activities being carried out by the plaintiffs
and to devise some way to stop the illegal construction on the Gaon
Sabha land/Shamlat Deh. There is truth in the allegations levelled
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.15/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
against the plaintiffs. The same is also clearly decipherable from
the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court while disposing off the
Writ Petitions and Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff Pinno Singh. Thus,
the allegations being true in nature they does not in any manner
tantamount to defamation.
Ld. Counsel has further submitted that there are series of
FIRs registered against the plaintiffs at PS Mehrauli in relation to
the land disputes. The said FIRs pertain to the offence of rioting,
attempt to murder, trespass, criminal intimidation and hurt. It has
also come in evidence that the plaintiffs have even remained in jail
for some period in relation to these cases. Thus, registration of
these FIRs also reflects that the plaintiffs since long are engaged in
illegal activities of land grabbing and threatening the people and
now by filing the present false suits, have put the defendants to
undue harassment for which they should be compensated by the
plaintiffs.
10.3 Now, defamation refers to an act of publication of a defamatory
content that lowers the reputation of an individual or an entity when
observed through the perspective of an ordinary man. Broadly
categorized - defamation can be by words spoken which are
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.16/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
defamatory in nature or by publication of a defamatory content.
While the former comes in the category of slander, the latter is
described is libel. Since in the case in hand, the defamation is
alleged to have been by way of publication in the newspaper i.e.
libel, I shall constrain my discussion to the said form of defamation.
The essential ingredients to prove defamation are:
(1) presence of defamatory content;
(2) the claimant should be identified in the defamatory statement;
(3) there must be publication of the defamatory statement and
(4) the said publication should be with the intent to lower the
reputation of the claimant in the eyes of general public.
10.4 Coming to the defences to defamation - same are truth, fair
comment and privilege. On this aspect, reference can be made to
the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ram
Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swamy, 126 (2006) DLT 535,
wherein the Hon'ble High Court had culledout the defences in a
suit for defamation, the pertinent observations are as under:
"95. Traditional defences to an action for defamation
have now become fairly crystallized and can be
compartmentalized in three compartments; truth, fair
comment and privilege. Truth or justification is a
complete defence. The standard of proof of truth is
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.17/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
not absolute but is limited to establishing that what
was spoken was 'substantially correct'. Fair comment
offer protect for the expression of opinions. Standard
of proof is not that the court has to agree with the
opinion, but is limited to determine whether the views
could honestly have been held by a fair minded
person on facts known at the time. Unlike defence of
truth, defence based on fair comment can be
defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defamer acted
with malice. Similar is the situation where the
defence is of qualified privilege. Privilege is designed
to protect expression made for the public good.
Protection of qualified privilege is lost if actual malice
is established. In public interest, absolute privilege is
a complete defence. Rational of absolute privilege
being restricted to court proceedings or proceedings
before tribunals which have all the trappings of a civil
court and parliamentary proceedings is that if threat
of defamation looms over the heads of lawyers,
litigants, witnesses, judges and parliamentarians, it
would prohibit them from speaking freely and public
interest would suffer." (underlining mine)
Thus, truth is an absolute defence in civil cases and irrespective of
the intention of an individual, no defamation suit can be brought
against someone if he imputes something true. Since the
defendants have claimed truth or justification in the news item in
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.18/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
the newspaper dated 14.07.2005, I shall be first of all analyzing the
content of truth alleged in the said publication.
10.5 Before adverting further, it would be relevant to note down that the
plaintiff Pinno Singh had filed two Writ Petitions and one Civil Suit
before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Civil Suit bearing
no.1090/2005 was filed by plaintiff Pinno Singh titled as 'Pinno
Singh vs. Brahm Aneja & Ors.' seeking the relief of permanent
injunction thereby restraining the defendants form occupying
certain khasra numbers as per AnnexureA and from altering the
character of land to nonagricultural use. The plaintiff claimed
himself to be the bhumidar of the land. In the said suit the Hon'ble
High Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the land
comprised in the khasra numbers given in AnnexureA wherein the
Local Commissioner on inspection gave a report that the land in
the said khasra numbers is shamlat deh land in village Aya Nagar.
On the khasra numbers found in the possession of the defendant,
there was no construction but on the khasra numbers in
possession of the plaintiffs, were found to be heavily builtup and
upon which a residential colony by the name of 'Ishwar colony' was
existing and the land was a shamlat deh land. The relevant extract
of the order dated 05.12.2005 passed by Hon'ble High Court
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.19/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
disposing off the suit is reproduced hereinunder:
"2.....The local commissioner inspected the land with
the assistance of the Revenue Authorities and the
Patwari informed the local commissioner that the
khasra numbers mentioned as in Annexure A to the
plaint which formed the subject matter of the suit, are
those of shamlat deh land in village Ayyah Nagar.
Some of the khasra numbers as per para 5 of the
report of the local commissioner were found to be in
possession of defendant No.1 and there was no
construction of any kind on the said land which was
covered with wild grass and bushes. The wire
fencing surrounding the area had been broken.
However, some of the khasra numbers were found to
be heavily built up which were part of the shamlat
deh land which is in possession of the plaintiffs and
form a part of the unauthorised residential colony
known as Ishwar Colony.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he has
instructions from the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit.
Learned counsel, however, cannot dispute the fact
that there has been gross misrepresentation and
suppression of facts in filing the present suit as is
apparent from the report of the Local Commissioner
and the statement of plaintiff No.1 recorded today.
There is no construction on the land of the defendant
No.1 while there is an unauthorised colony existing
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.20/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
on the land of the plaintiff. The present suit is thus
clearly an attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to
possibly pressurise the defendant No.1 in some
manner.
5.....Plaintiffs like the present one think that they can
take the Court for a ride by making
misrepresentation.
6.....The plaintiffs are land owners who have
apparently carved out the plots. This is shamlat deh
land and they sold it contrary to the law of land. They
have fained financially.
8. The suit and the applications of the plaintiffs are
dismissed as withdrawn subject to cost of Rs.1
lakh....
11. I am constrained also to pass certain other
orders in view of the matters which have come to
light. It is obvious that shamlat deh land is being
utilised by the parties contrary to the law of land. The
SDM of the are is directed to enquire into the matter
and take appropriate action to protect the land. A
status report be submitted by the SDM, Ayaah
Nagar, Mehrauli in respect of the land at village
Ayaah Nagar, Tehsil Mehrauli, the details of which
are given as Annexure A to the plaint....."
Further, the first Writ Petition filed by Pinno Singh bearing no.WP
No.10296/2005 was for seeking direction in the nature of
CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.21/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and
CS DJ No.9011/16
Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
mandamus that the respondent i.e. Govt. NCT of Delhi and
Revenue Assistant, Village Mehrauli, be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land and not to demolish the construction thereon. In the said Writ Petition he had stated that he had developed a residential colony by the name of 'Ishwar Colony' in village Aya Nagar Extn., New Delhi in year 1991. In and around the said area there are several other colonies and no action has been taken against other colonies. The petitioner has been singled out and the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the said land is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The said Writ Petition was disposed off by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 03.02.2006 wherein Hon'ble High Court referred to the order dated 05.12.2005 passed in the Civil Suit (Supra) and made following observations:
"2. Pinno Singh seems to be having a temperament quite contrary to his name One would assume him to be mild person. This Pinno Singh seems to be a most aggressive person.
15...Petitioner is a colonizer who is engaged in illegal activities. Petitioner cannot claim any sympathetic consideration. Policy of regularization of unauthorized colonies on which petitioner relies is CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.22/ 28 Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and CS DJ No.9011/16 Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
not for the benefit of the colonizers. If at all, it would be for the benefit of the persons who have been duped by unscrupulous colonizers."
Thereafter, another Writ Petition bearing no.7374/2005 was filed by plaintiff Pinno Singh which too was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 13.03.2006. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced hereinunder:
"4. In the suit filed by Pinoo Singh this Court found that Pinoo Singh had carved out an unauthorized colony on the agricultural lands of village Aya Nagar. In the writ petition filed by Pinoo Singh he was claiming a relief against the authorities to prevent them from demolishing the unauthorized houses constructed on the illegal colony carved out by him on the agricultural lands of village Aya Nagar.
5. In the present writ petition, Pinoo Singh claims to be acting pro bona. He claims to be the Masiha of the village. He has a grievance against the Revenue Authority. He alleges that the Revenue Authorities are conniving with illegal colonizers and are permitting carving of plots on the Gaon Sabha land of village Aya Nagar.
6. I may note that while dismissing the suit filed by Pinoo Singh, learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Revenue Authorities to enquire into the CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.23/ 28 Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and CS DJ No.9011/16 Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
matter and protect Gaon Sabha land.
7. Petitioner's locus standi is in doubt. It appears that the petitioner does not want anyone to compete with him in land grabbing and illegal colonisation.
8. The petition is motivated. It is dismissed with costs in sum of Rs.25,000/ to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
9. Dismissal of the writ petition would not mean that Revenue Authorities would not reclaim Government land as also Gaon Sabha land in the Revenue Estate of village Aya Nagar."
10.6 Thus, the Civil Suit as well as both the Writ Petitions filed by plaintiff Pinno Singh were dismissed. For clearcut misrepresentation made by the plaintiff in the Civil Suit, cost of Rs.1 lac was imposed while dismissing the Civil Suit. Further, cost of Rs.25,000/ was also imposed while dismissing each of the Writ Petitions. Hon'ble High Court in the said order has categorically observed that the plaintiff is a colonizer engaged in illegal acts. Part of the land upon which he had constructed Ishwar Colony was shamlat deh land and that the plaintiff had carved out plots on shamlat deh land and sold it contrary to the law of the land.
The Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 13.03.2006, even went to the extent of remarking that plaintiff does not want anyone CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.24/ 28 Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and CS DJ No.9011/16 Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
to compete with him in land grabbing and illegal colonizing. Thus, in view of the aforenoted orders passed by Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that the plaintiff had grabbed Gaon Sabha land, carved out plots thereon and sold them illegally.
The said orders/observations made by Hon'ble High Court have not been assailed by the plaintiffs. Interesting to note that the Writ Petitions were filed in the name of Pinno Singh and Kindoo Ram though both the petitions pertains to the plaintiff Pinno Singh / having been filed by him and there is no explanation, whatsoever, as to why the petitions were filed in two different names. 10.7 Dehors the aforesaid, in as much as the petitions have been disposed off, the temerity and obstinacy of the plaintiff is apparent as all these aspects were put to him during crossexamination which he has bluntly denied. To put it otherwise or taking cue from the observations made in the Writ Petition that the name 'Pinno Singh' appears to be that of a mild person whereas in reality he is not - on the same analogy it can be said that either Pinno Singh has a poor memory or deposes as per his convenience/ which suits his interest. Needless to state, in either of the situations, no credibility can be attributed to such selfserving statements. The CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.25/ 28 Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and CS DJ No.9011/16 Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
apparent falsity in the stand of the plaintiff is palpably evident from the fact that during crossexamination virtually he has denied each and every material fact though all such facts and proceedings are part & parcel of judicial proceedings.
I am not burdening the judgment by quoting specific pieces of his deposition. Suffice to note that he has blatantly disowned the very fact that he had developed colony by the name of 'Ishwar Colony' and carved out plots - upon which premise proceedings (Writ Petitions and Civil Suit) were filed by him before Hon'ble High Court.
10.8 Summing up the aforesaid, the statement made by defendant no.1 and published by defendant no.2 are truthful and to a large extent based on true & correct facts. As already noted above in the judgment of Ram Jethmalani (Supra), Hon'ble High Court has held that the standard of proof of truth required in cases of defamation, is not absolute but is limited to establishing that what was spoken was 'substantially correct'. In such circumstances, the question of the statements being defamatory, does not arise. The case propounded by the plaintiff has fallen to ground like a pack of cards. The case has no foundation at all and rather falls within the CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.26/ 28 Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and CS DJ No.9011/16 Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
category of litigative acrobatics by the plaintiff to somehow or the other deflect the attention from his illegal activities. The suit, thus, deserves to be dismissed.
10.9 In so far as the case of Rishi Pehlwan is concerned, the observations made hereinabove are squarely applicable as the evidence which has been recorded in this case, is substantially similar to that of the case of Pinno Singh. As already held above, testimony of Pinno Singh has no evidenciary value and the testimony of Rishi Pehlwan suffers from the same vice. Both of them were sailing in one boat. Apart whereof the case of Rishi Pehlwan is on a much weaker footing as the question of defamation and consequent damages on account of loss of reputation presupposes that the defamatory allegations must have been read/made known to third person(s) in whose eyes the reputation or esteem of the plaintiff is lowered. Curiously, the evidence of the plaintiff only comprises that of himself and a formal witness PW2 - an official of Indian Express newspaper who has produced the certified copy of newspaper dated 14.07.2007 exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. Needless to state, by no stretch of imagination it can be said CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.27/ 28 Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and CS DJ No.9011/16 Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
that the cases having been proceeded together, the loss of reputation of plaintiff Rishi Pehlwan or the loss of esteem was with regard to the third person being none else than Pinno Singh. 10.10 Resultantly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, both suits failed.
All issues are decided against the plaintiffs. 10.11 On the point of imposition of cost, I have mulled over and I am not imposing the same as in all the three previous proceedings before Hon'ble High Court, heavy costs have already been imposed on him and more importantly the case was assigned to this court on 21.11.2017 when it was at the stage of PE and in approximately 4 months time, it has been finally disposed off.
12. Relief:
In view of my aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (Shunali Gupta) Dated: 28.03.2018 Addl. District Judge(06) South Distt. Saket Courts, New Delhi.CS DJ No.9027/16 Page No.28/ 28
Pinno Singh @ Kinno Singh Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.
and CS DJ No.9011/16 Rishi Pahalwan @ Rishi Pal Vs. Veer Singh & Anr.