Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Birinder Singh & Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 February, 2011

Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Garg

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2006                          -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.




            DATE OF DECISION: February 23, 2011.


                   Parties Name

Birinder Singh & others
                                  ...PETITIONERS

       VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
                                    ...RESPONDENTS


CORAM:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg


PRESENT: Mr. Amit Rawal,
         Advocate, for the petitioners

            Ms. Palika Monga, D.A.G., Haryana,
            for respondents No. 1 to 3.

            Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4


Jasbir Singh, J. (oral)


JUDGMENT

CM Nos. 2807-08 of 2011:

CM applications are allowed and documents Annexure P-14 to P-19 are taken on record.

CWP No. 865 of 2006:

Petitioners are the members of one family and they have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash a notification dated January 27, 2003 (P1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2006 -2- short the Act), to acquire a vast track of land including 211.24 Acres of land in the village Dhaliwas. Petitioners were the owners of 152 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land, which is subject matter of the above said notification. The land was proposed to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation as residential commercial sectors 18, 19, 20 part, commercial sector 17 part at Rewari. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on January 23, 2004. An award in this case was passed on January 20, 2006. One day prior thereto, notice of motion was issued in this case and to get relief, reliance was placed upon a pending Civil Writ Petition No. 10011 of 2004.

In this writ petition, it is primary contention of the petitioners that the land under acquisition in this case is about 49 Kanals and in the said land, residential (constructed) houses of the petitioners are in existence. Despite a policy to the contrary, arbitrarily land with construction has been ordered to be acquired. It is further contention of the petitioners that relief was given to many other land owners by releasing their land under similar circumstances.

At one point of time, on a statement made by the State counsel, this writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. However, subsequent thereto, on an application moved, wherein it was stated that out of 49 Kanals of land in this case, only 19 Kanals 15 Marlas of land was released from acquisition on a ground that there were residential houses/ buildings in existence in that land.

After revival of this writ petition, reply was filed by respondents No. 1 and 3 through Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2006 -3- Haryana, at Gurgaon. Para No. 4 of the reply (Preliminary Objections) reads thus:

"4. That there was one old residential house measuring 128' x 150', and three rooms and a Mandir total measuring 30' x 25', two rooms with kitchen and varanda total measuring 40'x 30', a kothi measuring 55' x55', two rooms with varanda total measuring 20' x 25', two samdhi measuring 20'x15' each, two rooms total measuring 30' x 15', two rooms total measuring 40' x 40' of the petitioners over the land in dispute at the time of issuance of notification u/S 4 of the Act. Hence the land in dispute bearing Khasra No. 19//24min measuring 2 kanal 10 marla, 19//25min measuring 2 kanal 10 marla, the land bearing khasra No. 25//5min measuring 5 kanal 16 marla, 25//6min measuring 6 kanal, 25//27 measuring 1 kanal 8 marla, the land bearing khasra No. 25//15/1 measuring 1 kanal 11 marla has been left out of acquisition by the Govt. It is worth mentioning here that the land measuring 19 Kanals 15 Marlas of the petitioners, the detail of the same has been given above , has been excluded from the acquisition. Rest of the land of the petitioners measuring 30 Kanal was vacant at the time of issuance of notification u/S 4 and the same has already been acquired for public purpose. The possession of the acquired land in dispute of the petitioner (measuring 30 Kanal) could not be taken due to the stay orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court."

Thereafter, a short affidavit was filed by Madhusmita Moitra, District Town Planner, Rewari, on behalf of respondent No. 2. Relevant paras of the affidavit read thus:

"2. That the Director, Town and Country Planning has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 by the petitioners in the present writ petition unnecessary, as neither any prayer nor any relief has been sought by the petitioners from the respondent No. 2, i.e., Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana. However, the contents in the writ petition are misrepresented by the petitioners in their reply to CM in para 9, a short reply to highlight the factual position of the case in question is presented herein as below:-

(i)That in Para 9 of the reply to the Civil Miscellaneous No. 19308/2009 in the present writ petition, the petitioners have tried to twist the material fact in their favour by mentioning that a Layout Plan was approved by Director, Town and Country Planning vide letter dated 12.8.2008 for adjusting the released land of the petitioners. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners had executed a collaboration agreement dated 16.12.2004 (Annexure R-1) with the developer M/S Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd.

For part of their land measuring approximately 1/3rd share of 96K-15M i.e. 12.094 acres to develop the plotted colony. Subsequently, the petitioners executed bilateral agreement CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2006 -5- with Director, Town and Country Planning vide agreement dated 31.5.2007 as annexed at Annexure R-II, on the basis of which, license No. 184 dated 4.6.2007 was granted to the Developer. The copy of license along with schedule of land is annexed at Annexure R-III.

The Perusal of the land schedule reveal that the khasra No. of the land in dispute mentioned in Para 1 above are not included in the licensed Area. The Director, Town & Country Planning Haryana had approved the Revised Layout Plan cum Demarcation Plan cum Zoning Plan of this licensed land vide letter dated 12.08.2008 and that does not include the disputed land of the petitioners which is attached herewith as Annexure R-IV. The petitioners have wrongly interpreted the said layout plan of the disputed land.

3. That the petitioners had concealed the true facts that out of 49 Kanal 15 Marla which is under dispute, 19 Kanal 15 Marla land of the petitioners i.e. 2.46 acres stands released by the Government on merit. The said released land of the petitioners had been shown on the copy of Demarcation Plan of Sector 19, Rewari as well as Revised Layout-cum- Demarcation-cum-Zoning Plan of the licensed colony as annexed at Annexure R-V.

4. That the petitioners have now approached this Hon'ble Court and challenging the land under same notification wherein part of their land i.e. 19 Kanal 15 Marla stands already CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2006 -6- released and part of their land i.e. 1/3rd of 12.094 acres, for which they themselves had entered into an agreement to develop plotted colony in collaboration with private developer, and for remaining land in dispute which Government had acquired for developing urban estate for public purpose, the petitioners are posing hindrances by challenging the Notification. The very act of the petitioners is aimed purely at their vested interest and hence the present writ needs to be dismissed."

It is further mentioned in this affidavit and the reply earlier filed that 30 Kanals of land was finally acquired as the same was lying vacant at the spot. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that in that portion of the land also, there exists a huge construction. However, neither in this writ petition nor at the time of arguments any detail of the construction was given. In the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 3, dimension of the existing construction is shown and it is further stated that taking note of the same, 19 Kanals 15 Marlas of land of the petitioners was kept out of acquisition. No replication has been filed to the averment made in the written-statement.

Otherwise also, it is unbelievable that the residential houses of the five petitioners will cover the land measuring 49 Kanals as alleged. We are satisfied that the construction may be in existence in 19 Kanals 15 Marlas of land, which was left out of the acquisition. It appears that some wrong entries were got inserted in some of the revenue documents, upon which reliance has been made, to say to the contrary, neither dimensions of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2006 -7- the construction is shown nor any photograph has been placed on record to support the averment made in this writ petition.

Be that as it may, because of their own act and conduct in misleading the Court and concealing the material facts, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief what-so-ever. Petitioner No. 4 is a Law Graduate. It is expected that he should know the consequences of concealment of the material facts, which has a bearing on the facts of the case. It is not in dispute and rather admitted before us at the time of arguments that total land of the petitioners, which is subject matter of acquisition under Section 4 of the Act was 152 Kanals and 6 Marlas. After issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on January 27, 2003, the petitioners along with other land owners entered into a collaboration agreement with a Builder, namely, M/S Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd., New Delhi, on December 16, 2004. It appears that the said Builder used his good offices and got released the land measuring 102 Kanals and 6 Marlas from acquisition even after issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act. License to develop a colony to the petitioners, other land owners and the builder, mentioned above, was granted by the respondents on May 31, 2007. It is also on record that thereafter taking note of existence of the construction, 19 Kanals 15 Marlas of land owned by the petitioners was released from acquisition. By mis-stating the facts and without disclosing the above said facts, the petitioners tried to raise a grievance that by not releasing their land, discrimination has been done to them by releasing land in favour of others. Petitioners nowhere stated in this writ petition that they had got relief by getting their land released to the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2006 -8- extent of 102 Kanals 6 Marlas, for which license to develop a colony has been granted, and 19 Kanals and 15 Marlas thereafter. Such a litigant is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. In similar situation, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 20963 of 2010, decided on January 20, 2011, has observed as under:

"From the centuries the Indian Society always depicted two basic values of human life i.e. truth and non-violence. Persons like Mahatma Gandhi, Swami Vivekanand, Gautam Budha etc. always guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constitute an integral part of justice - delivery system without which justice can not be done. In pre- independence era, the people feel proud to tell truth in the Courts irrespective of the consequences which they may have to face. But, in the post independence period drastic changes can be seen in our value system. Today, materialism has overshadowed our old values and everyone is concerned with his personal gain. People have become so greedy that they do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood for their personal gain. People involved in the litigations conceals truth from the Court and take the shelter of misrepresentation and suppression of real facts to mislead the Court to get an order passed in their favour.

What treatment should be given to such like litigants, an answer was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 Supreme CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2006 -9- Court Cases 114, in which, it was held as under:-

"A party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. A person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty- bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim."

In the case of Dalip Singh (Supra), the Court referred the observations made by the Supreme Court in , Prestige Lights Ltd. V. SBI, (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 449, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:-

"In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."

In view of non-disclosure of material facts and also mis- statement of the facts before this Court, we are not inclined to give any relief to the petitioners what-so-ever. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners with the Secretary of UT Chandigarh Legal Services Authority within a period of one month, failing which, Secretary of the said Authority will be at liberty to recover the said amount by initiating proceedings as per law.

( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge February 23, 2011.

DKC