Bombay High Court
Narinder Bhasin vs State Of Maharashtra Revenue And Forest ... on 22 July, 2021
Bench: S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav
Digitally PA-Nitin Jagtap 1 / 9 WP-L-11807-2021
signed by
NITIN
NITIN DINKAR
DINKAR
JAGTAP
JAGTAP
Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
2021.07.26
16:55:11
+0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11807 OF 2021
Narinder Bhasin ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr.Niranjan A. Mogre i/b. Mr. Siddhesh S. Borkar for the Petitioner.
Mr.Kedar Dighe, AGP for the State.
Mr.Tushad Kakalia a/w. Mr. Satish Kamat for Respondent No. 3.
Mr.Milan Desai i/b. Mr. T.R.Patel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 10.
Mr.J.S.Yadav for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
Ms.Sheetal Metkari for MCGM.
Mr.Shekhar Bhalerao, Senior Police Inspector a/w. Ms.Anita Kadam, API of Malwani
Police Station, Mumbai, present.
Ms.Smita Mohite, Tahsildar (Encroachment) Malad from the office of the Deputy
Collector (Encroachment) Malad - 2, present.
Mr.Bhushan Chandrakant Mhatre - Respondent No. 7, present in person.
Mr.Amjad Ali Shaikh - Respondent No. 8, present in person.
Mr.Faruk Ismile Patel - Respondent No. 9, present in person.
Subhash Naik, present in person.
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 22ND JULY, 2021.
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
PA-Nitin Jagtap 2 / 9 WP-L-11807-2021
P.C. :
1. By our Order dated 20th July, 2021, passed in the above Writ Petition, we have recorded that some of the Respondents have executed a Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') recording their inter se transaction with regard to purchase and sale of Government lands. We had put several questions to some of the parties and their Advocates and have in our Order also recorded the conduct of some of the Respondents. After giving certain directions to the parties the matter was adjourned and is accordingly listed today.
2. Today, we are informed that Advocate Shri P. M. Havnur who had earlier represented Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 10 before us has declined to represent them. Advocate Shri J. S. Yadav who had earlier represented Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 before us, states that he will not be representing Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 any further. Advocate Shri Sanjay Kharat who was earlier representing Respondent No. 9 before us is not present. Respondent No. 9 has informed us that Advocate Kharat will not be representing him anymore in the matter.
3. Advocate Shri Milind Desai instructed by Advocate Shri T. R. Patel, states that Advocate Patel will now file his appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 10. He states that the earlier Advocate Shri P. M. Havnur had represented his Clients i.e. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 10 at the instance of Respondent No. 9 - Shri Faruk Ismile Patel, who had informed Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 10 that they should PA-Nitin Jagtap 3 / 9 WP-L-11807-2021 not worry about the above matter and that he will take care of all the legal proceedings including appointment of Advocates on their behalf. Therefore, the Affidavit filed on behalf of his Clients i.e. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 10 was prepared by Advocate Havnur without taking any instructions from Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 10 (his then Clients), and was prepared in accordance with the instructions given by Shri Faruk Ismile Patel - Respondent No. 9. He submitted that since Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 10 do not confirm the contents of the Affidavit dated 15 th July, 2021 tendered in Court on their behalf, they be given an opportunity to file a fresh Affidavit setting out the true and correct facts in the matter.
4. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 appearing in person have submitted that since Advocate Shri J. S. Yadav and his senior Shri Sharma have today informed them that they would not be representing Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the above matter, they are yet to appoint another Advocate. However, Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have submitted that they do not have any idea as to what is going on in the matter and that they have till date acted only on the basis of what they were directed to say and do by Respondent No. 9 - Shri Faruk Ismile Patel. They have further informed the Court that even after the papers / proceedings in the above matter were served on them, Respondent No. 9 assured them that they will not be required to do anything in the matter and that he would take care of the entire proceedings, including appointment of an Advocate to represent them in Court.
5. When we inquired from Respondent No. 9 as to why Advocate Kharat PA-Nitin Jagtap 4 / 9 WP-L-11807-2021 had stopped representing him in the matter, he informed us that he has no money to pay the fees of his Advocate. Upon enquiry he informed the Court that he is residing with his wife and two children who are not earning and though he has two bank accounts, the balance in the said accounts is 'zero'. When we enquired as to how in these circumstances, he and his family members are able to sustain themselves, Shri Patel obviously had no answer. Realizing that Respondent No. 9, who as stated above, had just a week ago appointed Advocates for himself and also for other Respondents, is making statements which are false, incorrect and dishonest to his knowledge, we had to remind Shri Faruk Ismile Patel - Respondent No. 9 that just a week back he had filed his Affidavit through Advocate Kharat stating that he is carrying on several businesses in the name of Patel Dairy, Patel Milk Center, Patel Dairy Snacks & Beverages and Patel Pan Beedi Shop. In fact, he has annexed photographs which provide particulars of two of his businesses, namely Patel Milk Center and Patel Pan and Beedi Shop. He has also annexed copies of the Certificates issued by the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, in relation to his businesses. The photographs which Respondent No. 9 has annexed to his Affidavit are reproduced hereunder :
PA-Nitin Jagtap 5 / 9 WP-L-11807-2021 PA-Nitin Jagtap 6 / 9 WP-L-11807-2021
6. The Petitioner has today produced before us several Agreements executed by and between Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 10 and Shri Subhash Naik individually on the one hand and Respondent No. 9 - Shri Faruk Ismile Patel on the other. The said Agreements show that Respondent No. 9 has purchased several plots of land from Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 10 and Shri Subhash Naik, for which Respondent No. 9 has paid amounts aggregating to several lakhs to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 10. When we confronted Respondent No. 9 with the said documents / Agreements he informed us that these are forged and fabricated documents and he was seeing the same for the first time. His blatant lies stood exposed when the original file maintained by the Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited, was perused by us and we came across one of the very same documents, i.e. the Agreement for Sale dated 5 th August, 2019, which was executed by Respondent No. 9 with Shri Subhash Ramchandra Naik, whereunder Respondent No. 9 has purchased premises bearing "Room No. ..., adm. about 400 sq.ft., bearing S.No.121, situated at Shanti Nagar, Masterwadi, Madh Jetty Road, Malad (W), Mumbai. ", for an amount of Rs. 14 Lakhs. It is therefore clear that Respondent No. 9 has discharged services of his Advocate not because he has no money to pay his fees, but only because he wants to mislead the Court by making statements which are false and incorrect to his knowledge. The conduct of Respondent No. 9 therefore amounts to interference in the course of justice. Respondent No. 9 is therefore prima facie guilty of contempt in the face of the Court and is liable to be punished forthwith. However, at this stage we will only be PA-Nitin Jagtap 7 / 9 WP-L-11807-2021 directing Respondent No. 9 to explain on Affidavit as to why action should not be taken against him for his aforestated conduct.
7. Shri Subhash Ramchandra Naik states that he has not signed the Agreement dated 5th August, 2019 and he has not received any consideration as recorded therein from Respondent No. 9, a copy of which Agreement is filed by Respondent No. 9 with Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited.
8. In view of the aforestated stand taken by the Respondents in respect of the inter se sale of Government lands, the matter indeed has taken a very serious turn. Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are all trying to refute the documents which inter alia establish that they have dealt with Government lands. According to the Government, the said land is declared as a "Non Development Zone" and an FIR has already been filed at the instance of the Tahsildar with Malwani Police Station, Mumbai, and the investigation has commenced. Since none of the Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have at this stage come clean before the Court, the investigation has become very crucial. The investigation therefore shall be carried out under the supervision of the Additional Commissioner of Police, under whose jurisdiction Malwani Police Station is situated.
9. In view of the above, we pass the following Order :
i. The Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are given one more opportunity to file their fresh Affidavits setting out the true and correct facts in the matter within a period of one week from today.
PA-Nitin Jagtap 8 / 9 WP-L-11807-2021 ii. Respondent No. 9 is directed to appoint an Advocate on or before the
adjourned date and to remain present along with his newly appointed Advocate on the adjourned date.
iii. Respondent No. 9 is directed to file an Affidavit explaining why action should not be taken against him for making false and incorrect statements before this Court, as recorded hereinabove.
iv. Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall deal with the Additional Affidavit dated 22nd July, 2021 filed by the Petitioner, as well as the Additional Affidavit in Reply dated 22nd July, 2021 filed by the Respondent No. 2 - Tahsildar. v. The Learned Advocate for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai shall on the adjourned date provide the particulars sought by our Order dated 20th July, 2021.
vi. The City Survey Office, Goregaon, Mumbai, shall in pursuance of the Letter dated 19th July, 2021, addressed by the Respondent No. 2 - Tahsildar to the Collector, carry out the demarcation of the Government lands within one week from today.
vii. A copy of this Order along with copies of our Order dated 6 th July, 2021 and 20th July, 2021 shall be forwarded by the Office of the Government Pleader to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, as well as the Additional Commissioner of Police in whose jurisdiction Malwani Police Station is situated.
viii. The original file submitted by Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited is PA-Nitin Jagtap 9 / 9 WP-L-11807-2021
retained by the Court and the Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to keep the same in safe custody.
ix. Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall remain present before this Court on the adjourned date.
x. Stand over to 30th July, 2021 at 2.30 p.m. in Court Room No. 20, for a physical hearing.
(MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )