Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat And Anr. vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal And Anr. on 11 July, 2007
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J.
1. Shri Mihir H. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General with Shri Dipen A. Desai, learned AGP for the petitioners; none for the respondent No. 1; Shri L.N. Medipalli, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. The State Government, being aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.92 passed by the learned Member, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S. No. 184/89, is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a submission that the Revenue Tribunal made wrong statements/observations in its order and allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 2. It is the case of the State Government that the Deputy Collector did not record any statements of the parties nor did he look into the additional evidence. His findings were based upon the merits of the matter and he was justified in interfering with the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar cum ALT.
3. In the petition, apart from other grounds, Ground SF reads as under:
[F] The Learned Tribunal erred in law and in fact in holding that the ratio in the judgment by this Hon'ble Court reported in 11 G.L.R. Pg. 307 applies to the facts of the present case. In this behalf, it is submitted that nowhere in the judgment and order of the Deputy Collector can it be observed that the Deputy Collector has taken any additional evidence and the said addl. evidence has gone into the making of the said judgment and order of the Deputy Collector. On the contrary, a bare glance at the said judgment and order of the Deputy Collector, the revisional authority has come to the conclusion only and solely on the basis of what were on record before him. Nowhere in his judgment and order, does the Deputy Collector expressly or even impliedly make a reference to the so called examination alleged to have been taken by him and that the conclusion reached by him was on the strength of the said additional evidence. Interestingly, it is noteworthy that while observing in its impugned judgment and order that the Deputy Collector has examined the Deputy Mamlatdar as also the legal heir of the land holder, the Learned Tribunal has not thought it fit and appropriate to elaborate as to what precisely were the deposition made during the alleged examination that could be said to have influenced the mind of the Deputy Collector in coming to the conclusion. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order is passed without jurisdiction.
4. Basing upon this ground, Shri Dipen Desai, learned AGP, on 20.6.2007 argued before the Court that the Tribunal was absolutely unjustified in making observations in para-6 that, the learned Deputy Collector in his suo motu revisional powers had examined some witnesses/additional witnesses. Shri Desai was informed that in para-5 of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, it was clearly stated that the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the present respondent was that the Deputy Collector had examined the applicant and only thereafter, pronounced the judgment. Shri Desai was specific in his submission that the State had come with the case that the Deputy Collector did not record any additional evidence. Shri Desai was not ready and willing to examine the correctness of the observations made by the learned Tribunal nor was he ready to verify the facts from the records which, otherwise, could be made available to the State Government. Obsessed with some authority, Shri Desai argued that the statement made in the writ application was absolutely correct. This Court required the learned Counsel for the State to call for the original records. It was made clear by this Court that if the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse, then, this Court would set aside the order and allow the writ application and in case despite the arguments and findings recorded by the Tribunal that; the Deputy Collector had recorded the additional evidence and that the ground raised by the State Government in support of the writ application is bad, this Court shall dismiss the writ application with exemplary cost which may go up to Rs. 50,000/-. Even at that point of time, Shri Desai did not tell the Court that he be allowed some time to verify from the original records. He was fully convinced with the ground raised in the writ application and was not ready and willing to make any verification from the original records.
5. The records, as directed by the Court, were produced before the Court. Lo and behold, the records contain two statements recorded by the Deputy Collector. When Shri Desai was confronted with these records, he prayed for some time and thereafter, sought assistance of Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General. Shri Desai had also filed his affidavit dated 3rd July, 2007 wherein, he has tried to explain his position. In para-2, the affidavit quotes the entire ground. In para-3, it is stated as under:
I state that pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 20.6.2007, I had called for the record and proceedings of the matter and on perusing the same, I state that the Deputy Collector had recorded statements of the land owner and also the Government Representative, copies of which are at Annexure-I of this affidavit. I was not aware of these facts when I took the contention as aforesaid since the same did no form part of the record of the petition.
6. Shri Desai, after going through the records found that the Deputy Collector had recorded the statements of the land owner and also the Government Representative, copies of the same have been annexed at Annexure:I with the affidavit. First part of Annexure:I is the statement of Mehmadbhai, son of Gulam Mohammed; second part of the Annexure:I is the statement of one Kantilal, son of Mangaldas Thakor. Despite an admission in the affidavit of Shri Desai that the Deputy Collector had recorded statements of the land owner and the Government Representative, Shri Joshi submits that these, in fact, were not the statements but were submissions of the parties in response to the notice issued to them in suo motu revisional powers. I fail to understand that how could even at this stage two contrary stands can be taken. Shri Joshi submitted that perusal of paras-3 and 4 would make it clear that such defence has been raised in para-4 of the affidavit of Shri Desai.
7. Perusal of paras-3 and 4 would make it clear that they would run contrary to each other. Again, I am unable to understand as to how two contrary stands can be taken in the same breath. In our legal system, one should not approbate and reprobate or blow hot and cold at the same time. In para-3, Shri Desai has fairly stated that the Deputy Collector had recorded the statements of the land owner and the Government Representative. From the contents of para-3, it would clearly appear that Shri Desai finds the said record to be recorded statements. If that is so, then, there is no scope for Shri Desai to say that recording of the said statements did not amount to additional evidence at all. Before filing an affidavit in the High Court or before any Court or Authority, one is required to read and understand its contents. With a blind-fold, one is not required to affix his signatures on an affidavit. An affidavit in the Court is not an empty formality, it is a statement on oath, if such statement made on oath is found to be false or contrary to the records, the person submitting such affidavit can be prosecuted. I do not know why Shri Desai behaved in such manner. If he feels that he has some additional authority or power, because, he represents the Government, then, he must clear off all his misunderstandings, because, even the Government is answerable before the High Court. Statements in Annexure:I with the affidavit of Shri Desai, according to Shri Joshi were recorded in the cyclostyled format. He submits that this would not amount to recording additional evidence. The cyclostyled format, in fact, is a cover sheet for recording statement of a witness. It starts with SOn the oath, I state as under. Thereafter, name, father's name, religion, age, business, residence, etc. are to be recorded. This exactly is the format for recording statement of a witness. Just under all the formalities, heading is SSar Tapasani, which means examination-in-chief. If these are in the statement forms, then, nobody could say that these are not statements.
8. Proceeding sheet recorded on 11.1.93 signed by the Deputy Collector records that statement of the Representative of the Government and statements of private party/land owner were recorded. When a Presiding Officer records that he had recorded statements or recorded evidence, then, there is no say, rather, there is no occasion to say for anybody that such statements were not recorded.
9. The affidavit of Shri Desai in para-4 on one side accepts the mistake and tenders an apology but continues to say that; SI understand that even the argument that the said statements do no amount to additional evidence at all and do not vitiate the said order, could have been placed for consideration after stating the above facts, this statement in the affidavit of Shri Desai is palpably false. This statement made in the affidavit of Shri Desai is contrary to the records, it amounts to perjure and the deponent of the affidavit can certainly be prosecuted for making false statements on oath. What a lawyer understands about the conduct of the proceedings or the nature of the proceedings would be perception of that lawyer, but what the Presiding Officer of a Court understands, would run correct and rule the proceedings. When the Deputy Collector himself says that he had recorded the statements/evidence of the witnesses, then, it would be absolutely incorrect on the part of Shri Dipen Desai even to say that such statements do not amount to additional evidence.
10. I asked Shri Joshi, learned AGP that if such statements were recorded then, what would be the nature of the evidence, Shri Joshi fairly submitted that if any Court other than the trial Court records a statement of any person, then, it would amount to additional evidence.
11. Affidavit of Shri Dipen Desai was filed after he had received and had gone through the records. It is expected of a Government counsel that in a zeal to support the Government's case or cause, he should not ignore the records, he should not make any statement which is not palatable or does not befit his status. Had he gone through the proceeding sheet, he could have at least understood that the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the Tribunal was at all not unjustified in observing that additional evidence was recorded.
12. Shri Joshi submitted that the Deputy Collector, in view of the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act had powers to record additional evidence and if he had recorded the additional evidence, the same would not vitiate the proceedings.
13. The question before the Court is not whether the Deputy Collector had powers or not. The question before this Court is that whether this Court should interfere in the matter even after wrong, false and calculated statements are made in the open Court so also in the affidavit. Should this Court interfere in a matter like this where the learned AGP despite having fullest records with him does not read the records, does not go through the records, does not understand the records and files an affidavit contending that the statements recorded by the Deputy Collector would not amount to additional evidence, though learned Additional Advocate General admits that such statements would amount to additional evidence.
14. Ground SF, in support of the writ application is patently false and and concocted, it runs contrary to the records. The statements made in this Court on 20.6.07 were also incorrect. The affidavit of Shri Dipen Desai contains false statements and assertions. If this is the conduct of the State Government and its officers and this is the manner in which proceedings are conducted in this Court, then, I do not think that this Court is required to exercise its powers either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would be trite to say that any party who makes a false statement either in the appeal memo or in the affidavit or during the course of the arguments, then, such party would not be entitled to any discretionary relief or any other relief.
15. I am sorry to record all this, but when the conduct of the State counsel is bad, the Court is required to say something so that the State Government puts its house in order, it tells people who file writ applications or impart instructions to the Government counsel not to give false instructions or the State Government in its turn, may ask its representative, to show that they are above board and are in the Court to assist the Court. The approach of the Government should always be fair to the Court and the litigant public and it cannot be relief oriented in their own favour.
16. I dismiss the writ application. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, is vacated.
17. Instead of imposing costs of Rs. 50,000/-, I impose costs of Rs. 20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand only]; Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the respondent in person and Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited with the Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee.
18. The records maintained by the Deputy Collector be kept in a sealed cover in the High Court till disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, if any, to be filed by the State Government.