Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Singh And Anr. vs Commissioner on 14 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)133PLR498
Author: S.S. Nijjar
Bench: S.S. Nijjar, Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 28.3.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Rewari, order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the Collector, Rewari and order dated 25.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. In all the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have been held to be in illegal possession of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The main submission made in the writ petition is that the authorities below erred in law in entertaining the eviction application filed by respondent no.4 as the same could have been filed only by Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the writ petition, the aforesaid Section is reproduced in ground no. (i) as under:-
"7. Power to put the Panchayat in possession of Shamlat deh.
(1) The Collector shall, on an application made to him by a Panchayat or by an officer duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order, after making such enquiry as he may think fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, put the Panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable property in this shamlat deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have been vested in it under this Act and for so doing the Collector may exercise the powers of revenue court in relaxation to the execution of a decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887:"
2. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the three orders passed by the authorities below are wholly without jurisdiction as the application was not maintainable at the instance of respondent no.4. Counsel for the petitioners sought to rely on Section 7 of the Act as reproduced in ground No. (i). At that stage, it was pointed out to the learned counsel that the correct provision has not been reproduced which is as fol-
lows:-
"7. Power to put Panchayat in possession of certain lands:-
(1) An Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction in the village may, either suo motu or an application made to him by a Panchayat or an inhabitant of the village or the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or Social Education and Panchayat Officer, or any other officer authorised by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, after making such summary enquiry as he may deem fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, eject any person who is in wrongful, or unauthorised possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamlat deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have been vested in the panchayat under this Act and put the panchayat in possession thereof and for so doing the Assistant Collector of the first grade may exercise the powers of the revenue court in relation to the execution of a decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887;
[Provided that if in such proceeding the question of title is raised and proved prima facie,] the Assistant Collector of the first grade shall first decide the question of title under Section 13-A."
3. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that Assistant Collector Grade-I can entertain an Eviction Application against an unauthorised occupant, of panchayat land, filed by an inhabitant of the village. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that inadvertently the unmended provision as contained in Section 7 of the Act has been reproduced. We are not satisfied with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. A perusal of the amendment shows that it has been existing in the statute book since the year 1974. It cannot be expected that the aforesaid provision would not be known to the petitioners at the time of the filing of the petition.
4. It is settled proposition of law that parties who move the court seeking discretionary relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are obliged to candidly set out the whole case for the consideration of the Court. The parties are not permitted to paint a picture which would be advantageous to a particular party by concealing or misstating any particular fact or provision of law. On the court being satisfied that the petitioners have not been completely candid with the court, the litigant can be summarily thrown-fiut of the court. This view of ours finds full support from judgment of the Supreme Court in the case S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) LRs. and Ors., AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853. In" the aforesaid judgment, it has been held as under:-
"1. KULDIP SINGH,J:- "Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree-by the first court or by the highest court-has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by praying fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence." The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be passed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other. unscrupulous person from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
8. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the Court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, execution the registered release deed (Exhibit B-15) in favour of Chunila Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellant had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit of the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowear. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamount to playing fraud on the court, We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If lie withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side than he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party."
5. The aforesaid observations of Kuldip Singh, J. are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above, we would be failing in our duty, if displeasure of the court is not placed on the record.
6. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
Sd/-
Hemant Gupta, J.