Deliberately Suppressed Fact That Demolition Was Already Carried Out Before Case Filing: J&K&L High Court Imposes ₹50k Cost On Petitioners
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioners for suppression of facts.
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of J&K, seeking for quashing of the decision of the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) to demolish the boundary walls, structures, and take-over of the petitioners’ land.
A Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal said, “… it has been settled that suppression of any material fact amounts to abuse of the process of law and playing fraud, which would deprive an unscrupulous litigant from availing equitable or discretionary remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the petitioners, with a view to mislead this Court, have deliberately suppressed the fact that the demolition over the land of the petitioners was already carried out by the JDA before filing the instant case, which fact has been admitted by the petitioners in three separate applications filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and also in the petition filed under Section 561-A of J&K Cr.P.C. by the petitioners.”
The Bench added that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the discretionary remedy or relief available under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate K.S. Johal appeared on behalf of the petitioners while Senior AAG S.S. Nanda and Advocate Adarsh Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
A land in Jammu was the proprietorship land jointly owned and possessed by some persons and the same was later divided amongst themselves as per the revenue record. The said land, however, was near the Railway Station, as such, respondents wanted to forcefully occupy the same which resulted in filing a civil suit. The said persons were the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who contested a civil suit against the Northern Railways wherein a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was sought for restraining the defendants from interfering into their peaceful possession over the land with further direction not to dismantle the boundary walls or sheds constructed thereon. The plaintiffs based their case on the basis of the property which was purchased by them vide sale deed which was demarcated from the patwari concerned, wherein, they raised boundary wall and also constructed three sheds for storing material and housing their men.
The suit was hotly contested by the defendants/railways. The defendants took a plea in the suit that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were trespassers and had occupied a portion of land which was allegedly acquired by the railways way back in 1969-1970. The Sub-Judge held that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of land in question. The decree was challenged before the Additional District Judge via appeal by the railways wherein the petitioners filed an application for becoming the party respondents. The petitioner sought NOC from the respondent (JDA) to raise construction in his share of property which was refused to him, which impelled him to a file a petition before the High Court. The petitioners’ case was that the respondents were demolishing their structures even during the night hours, however, before they could reach the property of the petitioners, they sought the indulgence of the High Court for interference.
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed, “It is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”
The Court took note of the fact that the petitioners did not only stop in filing the petition on false and flimsy grounds by suppressing the material facts, but they have also gone to the extent of filing a contempt petition before the Court, seeking implementation of the interim order, which the petitioners got by way of suppressing material facts by projecting that the respondents are contemplating to demolish the illegal construction, when in fact, the demolition has already taken place prior to the filing of the petition.
“Since the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts, this Court is not inclined to discuss the merits of the case, as has been projected by the petitioners. After analyzing all the material facts on record coupled with the stand of the rival parties and arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered view that the instant petition is misconceived, false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed”, it said.
However, the Court left the issue wide open relating to whether JDA was justified in carrying out the demolition drive over the land for which the petitioners have allegedly earned a decree which has been upheld by the Appellate Court.
“Another legal question whether JDA was justified in carrying out the demolition drive over the land in question, in absence of any specific challenge to the said decree passed by the trial Court and upheld by Appellate Court in favour of the petitioners is also kept wide open. This Court is deliberately not going into these two questions, as the petitioners have not come to this court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts with a view to mislead this Court and that is why this Court is not inclined to discuss the merits of the case or else give any finding over the conduct of the JDA to carry out such demolition in absence of any specific challenge to said decree”, it further remarked.
The Court also noted that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the fact that the demolition on their land had already been conducted and the same was in their active knowledge, yet they with a view to mislead the Court, twisted the facts and projected a contradictory stand in the petition which lead to the passing of status quo order in their favour.
“Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have abused the process of law and concealed material facts and accordingly, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case, where cost is required to be imposed on the petitioners for their conduct”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioners to be deposited within two weeks in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund.
Cause Title- Satpal Sharma & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate K.S. Johal, Advocates Supreet S. Johal, and Radha Sharma.
Respondents: Senior AAG S.S. Nanda, Advocates Adarsh Sharma, Monika Thakur, and Atul Verma.
