Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hussain vs Gram Panchayat Roon (2025:Rj-Jd:7566) on 6 February, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:7566]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1749/2024
Hussain S/o Shahabudeen, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Roon, Teh
Mundwa Dist. Nagaur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Gram Panchayat Roon, Panchayat Samiti Mundwa Dist
Nagaur Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Roon, Dist.
Nagaur.
2. Gram Panchayat Roon, Panchayat Samiti Mundwa Dist.
Nagaur Through Secretary/ Village Development Officer,
Gram Panchayatd Roon, Dist. Nagaur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1751/2024
Fakrudeen S/o Ramzan, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Roon, Teh
Mundwa Dist. Nagaur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Gram Panchayat Roon, Panchayat Samiti Mundwa Dist
Nagaur Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Roon, Dist.
Nagaur.
2. Gram Panchayat Roon, Panchayat Samiti Mundwa Dist
Nagaur Through Secretary/ Village Development Officer,
Gram Panchayat Roon, Dist. Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1753/2024
Teja Ram S/o Shri Gamada Ram, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Roon
Tehsil Mundwa Dist. Nagaur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Gram Panchayat Roon, Panchayat Samiti Mundwa Dist.
Nagaur Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Roon, Dist.
Nagaur
2. Gram Panchayat Roon, Panchayat Samiti Mundwa Dist.
Naguar Through Secretary/village Development Officer,
Gram Panchayat Roon, Dist. Nagaur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani assisted by
Mr. Mukesh Purohit & Mr. Gaurav
Khatri.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak with Mr. Dilip Solanki.
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:7566] (2 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
06/02/2025
1. The present appeals have been filed against the order dated
06.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1,
Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case Nos.26/2024, 27/2024 & 25/2024
respectively whereby the respective applications under Order 39
Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, CPC as filed on behalf of the
appellants-plaintiffs stood rejected.
2. The learned Trial Court while deciding the application made
the following observations:
a) Although the plaintiffs claimed that they had filed
applications for regularization of their old possession, no such
applications were placed on record to substantiate the said fact.
b) As per the report dated 18.04.2023 of the Tehsildar,
Mundwa, there was no kutcha/pucca residential house on the site
in question and complete commercial activities were carried on the
said land.
c) The appellants-plaintiffs had the other lands in their
possession/ownership where they were actually residing.
d) There was no proof to the effect that the land in
question was used for residential purposes for more than 40
years.
3. Day before yesterday, that is on 04.02.2025, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants made a specific submission before
this Court that although the plaintiffs were in old possession of the
property in question for more than 40 years and had even applied
for regularization of their possession to the concerned Gram
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:7566] (3 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
Panchayat, the same was not considered and further that the
finding of the learned Trial Court to that extent is erroneous. He
further submitted that the gram panchayat is in process of
demolishing their dwelling houses where they are residing since
last 40 years.
4. On the said submission been made by learned counsel for
the appellants, this Court orally directed the counsel to place on
record the applications whatsoever filed by the plaintiffs for
regularization of their possession, and the documents to show
their residential possession since last 40 years.
5. In pursuance to the oral direction of this Court, today,
counsel for the appellants placed on record the alleged
applications as filed by the plaintiffs for regularization of their
possession.
6. A bare perusal of the applications reflect that the same
pertain to the month of June 2024. Evidently, the order impugned
is of 06.03.2024. Meaning thereby, there were no such
applications available on record before the learned Trial Court and
the finding of the learned Trial Court to that extent is correct and
the submission as made by counsel for the appellants is clearly
incorrect and fallacious.
7. Further, the said applications do not specify any particulars
of the land qua which the same have been filed. Except the name
of the applicants, all the other columns are blank, that is to say,
they are as vague as can be.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants, before this Court too,
raised the following grounds:
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:7566] (4 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
a) The possession of the plaintiffs on the land/property in
question is old and their applications for regularization had been
filed way back before the Gram Panchayat. However, no orders on
the same have been passed.
b) The plaintiffs are residing with their family on the land
in question and thus, the report dated 18.04.2023 of the Tehsildar,
Mundwa is totally incorrect.
c) The Gram Panchayat is proceeding maliciously against
the present plaintiffs as the complete process of removal of
encroachment is targeted only against four persons.
d) The plaintiffs have no other land where they can reside.
9. Responding to the above arguments as raised by counsel for
the appellants, counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat
submits that there was no application for regularization ever filed
by the plaintiffs to the Gram Panchayat till the date of passing of
the order impugned dated 06.03.2024. Further, the applications
filed in the Month of June 2024 also do not pertain to the disputed
land in question rather they pertain to other/alternate lands of
which the plaintiffs are in possession in the same village.
10. Counsel submits that none of the plaintiffs is residing on the
disputed lands in question. Each of them is having an alternative
land available in the same village and even have their dwelling
houses constructed on the said lands where they are residing with
their family.
11. To be particular, counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat
placed on record today, the details of the other khatedari
(jamabandis) lands of each of the plaintiff and also of the other
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:7566] (5 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
lands of which the plaintiffs are in possession qua which they have
even applied for regularization.
12. So far as the land in question is concerned, counsel submits
that only commercial activities are being undertaken on the said
land. To substantiate his submissions, counsel has placed on
record the photographs of the site in question which were a part
of record of the earlier writ petition as filed by the present
appellants.
13. Counsel further submits that prior to the suits in question,
the plaintiffs had already availed remedy of Writ twice and even
D.B. Special Appeal before this Court and after having lost before
all the Courts, the present suits in question have been filed.
14. Counsel submits that after the specific directions been
passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9685/2023,
when the Gram Panchayat started the process of removal of
encroachments from the land in question, obstructions were
created by the plaintiffs and hence, the Gram Panchayat was
forced to prefer a writ petition before this Court (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.9338/2024) wherein too, vide order dated 21.01.2025,
the Court directed the State administration to provide police
assistance to the Gram Panchayat for removal of the
encroachments in question. It is only after the order dated
21.01.2025 been passed that the appellants have pursued the
present appeals which were although filed in the month of May
2024, were being got adjourned only.
15. Counsel therefore submits that in view of the above facts,
the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and the orders
impugned do not deserve any interference.
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:7566] (6 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record as well as the documents and
photographs as placed on record today by both the counsels.
17. After thoroughly going through the complete material, the
first conclusion which this Court draws is that all the submissions
as made by learned counsel for the appellants before this Court
are totally incorrect, false and misconceived on the face of it.
18. The first argument raised by the counsel to the effect that
the applications for regularization were filed and placed on record
by the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court but the learned Trial
Court recorded an erroneous finding to the contrary, is on the face
of it, a total incorrect and fallacious argument.
19. The second argument that the plaintiffs do not have any
other residential premise available in the same village is also
totally misconceived.
20. The third argument that the plaintiffs have their dwelling
houses constructed on the land in question and are residing there
with their families is not only false but also deceitful.
21. The last argument raised that the Gram Panchayat is
adopting a policy of 'pick and choose' against the present
appellants-plaintiffs and is acting malafidely, also turns out to be a
total incorrect submission.
22. The documents as placed on record by learned counsel for
the respondent today clearly reveal that all the three appellants-
plaintiffs have not only the other khatedari lands but also the
other lands of which they are in possession in the same village.
23. The photographs as placed on record today clearly reflect
that only commercial activities are being conducted on the lands
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:7566] (7 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
in question. The photographs of the residential houses of the
plaintiffs on the other alternate lands is also evident. Meaning
thereby, the site report dated 18.04.2023 as relied upon by the
learned Trial Court depicts the clear position on the site.
Further, the fact of only commercial activities been
conducted by the plaintiffs is evident even from the electricity bills
as placed on record by the appellants themselves in the present
appeals, to substantiate their ground of long possession. The
electricity bills of Teja Ram clearly pertain to NDS (Non-Domestic
Service) category. So far as the electricity bills of Fakrudeen are
concerned, they although pertain to the domestic category but
then are not of the disputed land in question but pertain to his
residential house i.e. the other land where he is residing with his
family. Same is the case of Hussain.
24. Further, as is evident from the survey report dated
21.06.2024 (placed on record by learned counsel for the
respondents with his compilation), an inquiry on the objection of
'pick and choose' as raised by the plaintiffs, was very well
conducted by the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC). Vide the said
report, it was specifically observed that the Gram Panchayat had
issued notices to all the encroachees on the land in question and
the said notices were even a part of the report before the PLPC. It
was further observed that the Gram Panchayat intended and was
bound to remove all the encroachments on the land in question.
25. In view of the above crystal clear facts, this Court does not
find any ground to interfere with the order impugned as the
findings as recorded by the learned Trial Court are totally in
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:7566] (8 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
consonance with law as well as the material available on record.
The present appeals are hence, dismissed.
26. However, before parting, this Court is constrained to observe
that total incorrect, misconceived and fallacious arguments have
been raised by counsel for the appellants before this Court. On
28.01.2025, the present appeals were listed at Sr. Nos.81 to 83
and the same could not reach on that date. However, counsel for
the appellants made an urgent mentioning with a submission that
if the matters are not taken up for hearing, the dwelling houses of
the appellants would be demolished by the Gram Panchayat and
they would be rendered homeless. On the said submission been
made by counsel for the appellants, the Court directed the matters
to be listed on 04.02.2025. However, a perusal of the record
reveals that the present appeals were filed way back in the month
of May 2024 but were got adjourned only, whenever the same
were listed before the Court. Even an adjournment slip was
circulated on behalf of counsel for the appellants. Meaning
thereby, the urgency as mentioned on 28.01.2025 was also
misleading.
27. On 04.02.2025, as observed hereinabove, counsel for the
appellants raised submissions to the effect that the learned Trial
Court ignored all the material which was available on record and
passed an order total contrary to the documents as placed on
record by the plaintiffs. On that date, when the Court raised a
specific query to the counsel as to whether any application for
regularization was filed by the plaintiffs and was placed on record
before the learned Trial Court, the counsel very emphatically made
the specific statement, "I state that on oath sir.". In view of the
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:7566] (9 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
said emphatic statement made by the counsel, the Court directed
him to place on record the said applications and directed the
matters to be posted on 06.02.2025 i.e. today.
28. In view of all the above observations and findings as
recorded by this Court hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the
Court was clearly misled by counsel for the appellants. All the
submissions and arguments as raised by the counsel were/are
totally incorrect and misleading.
29. In the present scenario, when the Courts are overloaded and
overburdened with the number of listed cases where the daily
cause list comprises of more than 300 matters per day and many
a times, reaching to 600 matters per day, the Courts have no
other option than to rely upon the submissions made by the
counsels. In such a scenario, the Courts even pass orders relying
upon the submissions as made by the counsels. It is the basic
obligation of the litigant and his lawyer not to deceive or mislead
the Court. This responsibility extends to every function including
the presentation and interpretation of facts, drafting of pleadings
and documents, legal argument and other submissions or
communications with the Court. The duty not to intentionally
mislead or deceive is only the bare minimum required of the
advocate and solicitor. As an officer of the Court, he is expected
to advance the public interest in the fair administration of justice
even if this could jeopardise his client's interests. Hence, he is not
only required to inform the Court of all relevant decisions and
legislative provisions of which he is aware but also bound not to
make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and
misleading.
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:7566] (10 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
30. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P.
Chadha vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors.; (2001) 2 SCC 221,
professional misconduct is grave when it consists of betraying the
confidence of a client and is gravest when it is a deliberate
attempt at misleading the court or an attempt at practising
deception or fraud on the court. Therein, the Court held as under:
"The client places his faith and fortune in the
hands of the counsel for the purpose of that
case; the court places its confidence in the
counsel in case after case and day after day. A
client dissatisfied with his counsel may change
him but the same is not with the court. And so
the bondage of trust between the court and the
counsel admits of no breaking.
......
24. It has been a saying as old as the profession itself that the court and counsel are two wheels of the chariot of justice. In adversarial system it will be more appropriate to say while the Judge holds the reigns, the two opponent counsel are the wheels of the chariot. While the direction of the movement is controlled by the Judge holding the reigns, the movement itself is facilitated by the wheels without which the chariot of justice may not move and may even collapse. Mutual confidence in the discharge of duties and cordial relations between Bench and Bar smoothen the movement of chariot. As a responsible officer of the court, as they are called - and rightly, the counsel have an over all obligation of assisting the courts in a just and proper manner in the just and proper administration of justice. Zeal and enthusiasm are the traits of success in profession but over- zealousness and misguided enthusiasm have no place in the personality of a professional. Yet a counsel, in his zeal to earn success for a client, need not step over the well-defined limits or propriety, repute and justness. Independence and fearlessness are not licences of liberty to (Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:7566] (11 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024] do anything in the court and to earn success to a client whatever be the cost and whatever be the sacrifice of professional norms."
31. This Court also gets support of its view by observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virender Singh & Ors. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 296/2024 (decided on 10.09.2024) wherein the Court observed that, "it is not possible for Judges to go through each and every page of each and every case listed before the Court. Our system works on faith. We trust the members of the Bar when we hear cases. But, when we come across cases like this, our faith is shaken."
32. This Court is pained to observe that counsel for the appellants did not fairly state the facts before the Court but presented the same in such a way to mislead the Court as to the true facts and thereby, abused the process of law. The learned counsel not only made false and incorrect submissions but also withheld the true information which had a bearing in the matter. The counsel totally withheld the fact of the order dated 21.01.2025 passed in S.B. Writ Petition No.9338/2024 whereby a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already directed the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, Nagaur to ensure the requisite police force and other help to the Gram Panchayat to remove the encroachments. Therein, the Court further observed that in case the encroachers resist the Encroachment Removal Drive, the Gram Panchayat shall note their names and move an application in the present writ petition as to enable the Court to initiate proceedings for contempt against them. (Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:7566] (12 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024]
33. Interestingly, the present appeals had been filed way back in the month of May 2024 and an urgency in the same has been pleaded only after the order dated 21.01.2025 having been passed.
34. Further, after the photographs been placed on record by learned counsel for the respondent qua the residential houses of the plaintiffs constructed on the other lands, the Court posed a specific question to the counsel for the appellants as to whether the said photographs did not pertain to the residential houses of the appellants, the counsel made a specific statement before this Court, "I state that on oath sir.". The said fact becomes more relevant when it is the same counsel who had preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC in the Writ Petition No.9338/2024 wherein the order dated 21.01.2025 was passed.
35. This Court is of the clear view that had the facts not been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, definitely the appellants would have had a leverage by getting away with concealment and non-disclosure of the material facts. The distorted facts as stated before this Court not only prove to be an attempt to mislead the Court but also an attempt to waste precious time of the Court.
36. In view of the above observations, this Court finds it essential to saddle counsel for the appellants with a cost for an attempt to get a priority in getting the matters listed out of turn on account of the alleged grave urgency and further to mislead the Court by total incorrect, false and misconceived submissions. The appeals are therefore, dismissed at a cost of Rs.50,000/- to (Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:7566] (13 of 13) [CMA-1749/2024] be deposited by counsel Mr. C.S. Kotwani with the Litigants' Welfare Fund within a period of fifteen days from now.
37. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 211-213/KashishS/-
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 10:02:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)