CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 16, 2009 Devinder Singh etc. .....Petitioners VERSUS Union of India etc. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. P.L. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No. 3 to 5 with Mr. Amrit Inder Singh, Chief Engineer (Retd.) Central Works Punjab, PWD (B&R) Branch, Patiala, in person. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Advocate for Manpritam Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD (B&R) Moga. Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for Mr. Rattan Pal Jindal, Assistant Engineer Central Works Sub Division, PWD (B&R), Moga CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for Mr. Gursewak Singh Sandhu, Tehsilder Jaitu Mr. Saurabh Chugh, Advocate for Mr. Harinder Pal singh, Kanungo, Takhtupura Halwa Tehsil Nihal Singhwala, District Moga. Mr. Satish Grover, Executive Enginner, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Punjab PWD (B&R), Nawanshahr. Mr. Anand Kashyap, Advocate for Mr. Harjit Singh, Sub Diviional Officer. Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for Mr. Malkit Singh, Patwari, Halqa Bilaspur, Tehsil Nihal Singhwala, District Moga. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Some of the petitioners, who are 34 in number, were served with a legal notice by respondent No.5 alleging that they were in unauthorised occupation of the Government land measuring 2'-00 x 20'-00” on road Shahkot-Moga-Ramgarh National Highway-71 passing through village Bilaspur. Terming this notice to be totally illegal and void, the present writ petition was filed to challenge the notices. The petitioners are owners of their respective properties for more than 100 years. The property is situated along the road, which was made pucca in the year 1962 from Badni Kalan to Machhike side. This road was widened to 66 ft. and the land was accordingly acquired for the purposes of widening the road. This happened in the year 1962 but no land was acquired in the abadi CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: area for widening the road. Without justification, the respondents started claiming that width of the road inside the abadi area is also 66 ft. wide. The Departmental officials started stopping the petitioners verbally from renovating their houses/shops on National Highway 71 inside the abadi area of village Bilaspur. In this background, the petitioners were served with the notices, Annexures P-7 to P-9. In response to the notice issued, a detailed joint reply on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 was filed on 26.11.2007. The stand taken in the written statement was that the land in question was acquired by the State Government vide notification No.775 BR-IV- 62/6602, for the construction of Shahkot-Moga-Ramgarh Road (National Highway 71). In the written statement, it is pointed out that the land in question fell within the abadi deh and record pertaining to the aforesaid acquisition was not available with the respondents. It is further stated in the reply that the revenue authorities had given in writing that the land was acquired twice but the record was not forthcoming. Copy of one letter in this regard is enclosed as Annexure R1/T. Division Bench of this Court, in its order dated 12.5.2008, required respondent Nos.3 to 5 to furnish better particulars in regard to the averment about the land having been acquired to appreciate whether the width of the road was 44 ft. in abadi area or more as alleged. This order was never complied with by respondent Nos.3 to 5. The writ petition thereafter came up for hearing on 31.10.2008. The detailed order passed by the Division Bench on 19.11.2008 would show that the Bench hearing the matter on 31.10.2008 was inclined to dismiss the writ petition in view of the stand taken by the respondents that the land of which the possession CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: was being sought through the notices impugned in the writ petition had actually been acquired by the State Government. The order dated 19.11.2008 would also show that persistence of the counsel for the petitioners saved the day for them, who successfully pleaded before the Court that the respondents be asked to authenticate the averments made in Paragraph 7 of the written statement to the effect that the land had been acquired and that the revenue authorities have given in writing that the land was acquired in the abadi area as well. It was thereafter that the Bench considered it appropriate to summon respondent No.3 i.e. Secretary to Government in the Department of Public works (B&R) Branch alongwith the original record. On 4.11.2008, respondent No.3 appeared in the Court in person and stated that the record had been traced out from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur and the same be permitted to be translated and thereafter be allowed to be placed on record. The writ petition was accordingly adjourned to 19.11.2008. Respondents were directed to file affidavit alongwith the relevant documents showing acquisition of the land in question. Sh.Sukhdev Singh, Executive Engineer, Central Works Department at Ferozepur, then filed an affidavit stating therein that notification was issued on March 16, 1962 for widening Moga Badni Ramgarh road and the same was constructed on the acquired land. It is then disclosed in the affidavit that from the record, it was found that no land falling in the abadi deh was acquired for widening the road and that the notices under challenge were issued to the petitioners for vacating the land inadvertently. In the affidavit, it is further stated that the decision had been taken to withdraw the notices issued to the petitioners. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: Alarmed at this casual and careless attitude of the respondents, the Division Bench expressed its anguish and displeasure, which is reflected in its detailed order dated 19.11.2008. All these facts are noticed in the said order. The Division Bench justifiably observed that it was not possible for it to accept the callous attitude of the respondents, which had resulted in extreme hardship to the petitioners and had required them to incur unnecessary expenses in pursuing the present litigation. The Bench observed and appreciated the horrifying experience which the petitioners would have undergone upon service of notices impugned in the writ petition. The Bench also made comments about relentless efforts on the part of the respondents in pursuing the false stand taken before the Court in opposing the writ petition without application of mind. The Court was further to record that but for insistence and persistence on the part of counsel for the petitioners, injustice would have been perpetuated and the petitioners would have suffered uncalled miseries upon dismissal of the writ petition. Taking notice of this careless attitude of the respondents, the Bench felt satisfied to observe that exemplary costs were required to be imposed on respondent Nos.3 to 5 as well as against others who facilitated the filing of this false reply. In order to ensure compliance of the principle of natural justice and to give opportunity of explaining their respective position, the respondents and other effected persons were served with a notice. Respondent No.3 was directed to communicate this order to his predecessor as well the other who had dealt with the controversy raised in the petition. Respondent No.3 was further directed to supply the list of officers who were associated in filing this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 6 }: joint written statement on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5. In response to the above noted directions passed by this Court, respondent No.3 has disclosed the names of the persons who have been found associated/responsible for filing this false reply. All these officials/officers had been apprised about the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by Division Bench of this Court and were directed to file their response in the form of affidavits, explaining their position. In addition, it is also mentioned that Mr.Karn Avtar Singh, IAS, the then Secretary of the Government of Punjab, was now posted as Managing Director, Punjab State Industrial Corporation and Chief Engineer, Mr.Amritender Singh, the then Chief Engineer, NH, Pb., PWD B&R, working at relevant time had retired. Mr.J.S.Sandhu and Mr.Sukhdev Singh are stated to be working as Chief Engineers, National High Way Punjab and Executive Engineer, Central Works Division respectively at present. All the persons who have been found associated in preparing the false reply on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5, are represented through counsel and have been heard. The counsel representing the respective officials have made concerted attempts to palm off responsibility by pleading that they were not respectively concerned with either filing the reply or with preparation thereof. It is, however, not denied that the reply filed was false. It would be worth a notice that the Division Bench had satisfied itself that the case was such where the persons filing the false reply would deserve to be saddled with exemplary costs. I see no reason to think in any different manner and rather would view this to be a lapse which is to be dealt with firmly, lest the sanctity of judicial proceedings is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 7 }: compromised. There will not be much need to discuss the role and responsibility of respondent Nos.3 to 5, who have filed reply and were responsible to bring the true facts before this Court. They are found wanting and have certainly been too careless in their attitude. They are officers, having considerable length of services and can be expected to realise the sanctity of court's proceedings. Their act is such which would have led to injustice being perpetuated. The anguish of the Court comes out clear from the detailed order and the reasons recorded on 19.11.2008. The then Executive Engineer, Mr.Satish Grover had filed joint reply on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5. He is candid enough to admit his fault. It may be said to his credit that he has not made any effort to pass on the blame to his juniors but that can not be a reason to excuse him of his lapse. Respondent No.3, the then Secretary, Mr.Karn Avtar Singh, a senior IAS officer need not to be reminded of his responsibility to bring true averments in the reply before this Court. He has not bothered to see that correct facts are brought before the court and has failed in his duties at his own peril. He did not realise the seriousness of the issue, even when he was summoned to appear before the Court. He continued to stick to the false stand without application of mind and without himself checking the record. If he had been vigilant enough to perform his responsibility well, the situation could have been saved at his level. Innocent citizens would have been saved of this agony. It would have saved the time of this Court as well. See the men hours wasted in this uncalled for litigation. He apparently has, thus, failed in his duties as Secretary expected from him. He and respondent CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 8 }: No.5, both are clearly blame worthy for the false stand which is taken before the Court. Mr.Manpritam Singh was the Sub Divisional Engineer, who issued the impugned notices dated 14.5.2007 on behalf of the Executive Engineer. These are the notices, which in fact had precipitated the issue. He can be expected to know and ascertain the dimension of the concerned road before taking action in issuing such type of notices. Non-application of mind on his part, thus, is also made out in a matter as serious as this where persons were to be deprived of their property. Mr.Harjit Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer and Mr.Rattan Pal Jindal, Assistant Engineer of the Sub Division, are the officers who had got the demarcation of the disputed part on National Highway 71 conducted in Village Bilaspur from the revenue authorities. The report of the above demarcation was available in the record as the same was forwarded by Tehsildar concerned, where it is mentioned that no person was in unauthorised occupation of Government land. This demarcation was done in the presence of Sh.Rattan Pal Jindal but still all these officers failed to bring the correct facts to the notice of superiors, on the basis of which they filed reply. Mr.Gursewak Singh Sidhu, Tehsildar, Mr.Harinderpal Singh, Kanungo and Mr.Malkit Singh, Patwari, had given the demarcation report, which was found to be vague. It is this report which appears to have led to the confusion ultimately leading to filing of a false reply before the Court. These officials from the revenue department still made a valiant attempt to plead innocence and ignorance about their role ofcourse without success. Mr.Amrit Inder Singh was Chief Engineer, National CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 9 }: Highway(B&R) and has now retired from service. He has appeared in person and filed an affidavit as well. He submits that he was not responsible or otherwise associated with filing of this reply, which ultimately has been found to be false. He further pleads that he had only granted sanction for defending the case and thereafter was never associated with anything. The reply filed was on his behalf as well. He was the superior officer of respondent No.5 who filed and signed this false reply. He could be expected to supervise the further proceedings. Considering the facts that he has retired and was not in the know of things and was not associated with preparation of the false reply, he may not be held responsible for filing of this false reply. The responsibilities of the respective persons having been so determined, it would now require to be seen that what should be the approach and what should be the treatment meted to these officers. Since the Division Bench has already held that these officers need to be saddled with exemplary costs, nothing further may require consideration. A wrong or misleading statement if deliberately or willfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order would certainly prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and may, thus, amount to contempt of court. No doubt, it would have to be established satisfactorily that any deliberate or wrong statement was made in order to obtain the favourable order on account of consequence of such statement. Any wrong or a false statement may tend to interfere or would have a tendency to interfere with the due course of law. The anguish which the Division Bench of this Court expressed and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 10 }: the consequences that may have followed have sufficiently been noticed by the Court itself in its order dated 19.11.2008. This would in itself be enough to indicate that the issue is rather serious and can not be taken or dealt with lightly. The submissions are not made to urge that the wrong stand was taken in the written statement deliberately and willfully. It does not appear so. It is more or less a careless, causal and chivalrous attitude of the officials that seems to be the cause in this case. It is not possible to ignore this conduct on their parts. The impression should not go that the officers can be casual before the Court of law, which is the highest Court of justice in the State. All these officers, now held responsible, thus, would deserve punitive action. Since there is no indication of any deliberate or intentional attempt to file false reply, requiring these officers to pay costs, which has to be exemplary, would meet the ends of justice. Mr.Satish Grover, who has signed this false reply, will pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac), taking into account his responsibility in this regard. Mr.Karn Avtar Singh, who was Secretary of the concerned Department, is directed to pay a costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) for failing to ensure that correct and proper stand is taken on his behalf. Mr.Manpritam Singh, who had issued the notices without caring to check the record and Mr.Harjit Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer and Mr.Rattan Pal Jindal, Assistant Engineer, who were associated with the demarcation and still failed to brief their seniors would pay a costs of Rs.20,000/- each for respective lapses on their part. The revenue officers, namely, Mr.Gursewak Singh Sidhu, Tehsildar, Mr.Harinder Pal Singh, kanungo and Mr.Malkit Singh, Patwari, who were casual in carrying CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 11 }: out the demarcation, which facilitated the issuance of illegal notice followed by false plea in the proceedings would also pay a costs of Rs.20,000/- each for not performing their duties in a befitting manner. The costs so awarded be deposited in the accounts of Legal Services Authority, Punjab except a sum of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousands), which shall be paid to the petitioners. The writ petition is adjourned to 20.5.2009 to ensure compliance of this order. Let the entries be reflected in the respective confidential records of the officers/officials concerned for respective lapse on their parts and the punitive action taken against them respectively. April 16, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE