1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION W. NO.1287 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1119 OF 2000 (The Gram Panchayat, Brahmni vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 9, 2009 Heard Shri Bapat, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri Kumar, learned Counsel for the non-applicant no.1. Civil Application No.1287/2009 is moved by the applicant Gram Panchayat (original respondent in Writ Petition No.1119/2000 filed by the present non-applicant no.1). In the original writ petition, assessment of tax imposed by the Gram Panchayat was challenged. Shri Bapat, learned Counsel for the applicant, states that the said writ petition came to be 2 disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.6.2006 on the basis of false and incorrect statement made by the Counsel for the non-applicant no.1. It is submitted that the Counsel for the non-applicant no.1 had made a statement before this Court on 21.6.2006 that dispute between the parties was amicably settled and the terms of settlement were incorporated in the agreement dated 16.6.2006 executed between the parties. It was also stated before this Court that copy of resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 28.1.2006 in this regard was placed on record. The Counsel for the non-applicant no.1, in the circumstances, had prayed that since matter was compromised, the said writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said agreement. Pursis dated 16.6.2006 in this regard signed by the petitioner as well as respondent was also filed on record. Shri Bapat, learned Counsel for the applicant, states that on the basis of the above referred facts, this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 21.6.2006 since the matter was amicably settled. It is contended that in fact, Gram Panchayat had not passed any resolution to settle the 3 dispute between the parties and, therefore, question of executing any valid agreement in this regard between the parties did not arise. Similarly, filing of pursis in respect of settlement of dispute signed by Gram Panchayat also did not arise. It is further contended that all these facts placed before this Court and the documents filed on record were false and fabricated, therefore, the order dated 21.6.2006 obtained by the present non-applicant no.1 was by playing fraud and same is liable to be revoked and petition also is liable to be dismissed. Shri Kumar, learned Counsel for the non- applicant no.1, states that non-applicant no.1 had not played any fraud on the Court. It is submitted that person, who was then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, initiated the proposal for settlement and, therefore, non-applicant no.1 agreed to settle the dispute. It is contended that non-applicant no.1 had not deliberately or with fraudulent intention either placed any document before this Court or entered into any kind of settlement and, therefore, settlement arrived at by the parties is voluntary and if the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat with whom the 4 settlement was arrived at had no authority to enter into such settlement was not known to the non- applicant no.1 and it is not the fault of the non- applicant no.1. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that there was no resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of settlement of dispute between the parties and, therefore, documents which were placed before this Court, i.e. agreement dated 16.6.2006, copy of resolution dated 28.1.2006 alleged to have been passed by the Gram Panchayat and pursis dated 16.6.2006 alleged to have been signed by the parties were not valid documents. We want to express that the non-applicant no.1, who was petitioner in Writ Petition No.1119/2000, ought to have verified these facts before entering into any kind of settlement and should have seen whether the person with whom he was entering into settlement had a power and authority to settle the dispute on behalf of the concerned Gram Panchayat. According to us, the non-applicant no.1 had not 5 taken proper care before entering into the settlement with the person, who obviously entered into the settlement without there being any authority to do so on behalf of Gram Panchayat. We want to further express that in future, non-applicant no.1 should be careful and should not indulge in such activities and should not file documents on record unless non- applicant no.1 is sure of genuineness of such documents and should not obtain orders on the basis of such documents, authenticity whereof is not verified before filing them on record. In the circumstances, we set aside the order dated 21.6.2006 passed by this Court and restore Writ Petition No. 1119/2000 subject to deposit of costs of rupees ten thousand in this Court within a period of two weeks. The writ petition shall be restored only after cost is deposited. The civil application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE khj 6